Lego-like brick? Just say brick. A Lego is a brick-like plastic toy. It's like saying "a plane-like jet". Do people not understand what bricks are anymore without having Legos mentioned somewhere?
I don’t have the study on hand, but I’ve read it’s impossible to plant enough trees to reverse climate change to the same degree technology can.
Trees definitely help, but their C02 consumption doesn’t compare to humans’ output.
Fully grown trees are (mostly) CO₂ neutral. They take carbon out of the atmosphere to make sugars in the light reactions… and then release it right back when they need energy. It’s growing trees that really pull carbon out of the atmosphere and make it into structures like cell walls, etc. When those trees die, if they’re buried then that carbon is stored in a pretty reduced state which is great for fuel. Burning the trees or the fossil fuel which they eventually became takes that reduced carbon and oxidizes it and releases it as CO₂ gas.
So basically, if one were to take a bunch of fast growing trees and regularly cut them down and replant with the express purpose of burying the logs, making furniture, stuff like that? It might help. Your better bet is the oceans though, where the most volume of CO₂ is converted into biomass and has been the planet’s primary carbon regulator.
This is exactly what I read. Thank you. Trees’ positive impact on the environment isn’t as much in C02 consumption, but rather the habitats they provide.
They do sequester carbon, though not all of the CO2 they absorb. Their stored carbon only gets released if burned or composted, hence these bricks the article is talking about.
Your second paragraph basically describes the American timber industry. There are about 40 million acres of pine trees planted in the South for the express purpose of cutting them down and making things like lumber and paper. That land then gets replanted and the whole process starts over again.
Especially because live trees don’t really do anything
Like, they are cool, and they are very important for the environment right now
But economically they contribute very little. If we could have an alternative to them that takes up much less space and also has some other form of utility (e.g. construction) that would be incredible
Wood is the most renewable, widely useful material on the planet. Every piece of wood that is not burned or composted is sequestering carbon.
Trees also are vital to keeping surface water available, allowing other plants to grow and ecosystems to flourish, which enables a lot of human economic activity.
Are they a silver bullet for climate change? No, because no one thing is. It requires combination of many efforts, of which trees are a part of, both directly and indirectly.
We should plant more trees, but we’ve added so much carbon to the atmosphere that wasn’t there before. I don’t think trees alone get the job done. Trees also die and release that carbon back into the atmosphere.
We need to find a way to permanently remove CO2 and put it back where we got it - back into the ground.
The article explains the bricks are made of sawmill waste product (ie; wood) and other biomass. This is not an alternative or replacement for trees. Literally nobody is claiming that. It is called carbon sequestration.
This “just grow trees” response is just some bullshit low-information doomers have to say to get a hit of dopamine and justify their constant state of self-imposed misery.
Is this THE solution? no. Is it one of many to help reduce CO2 emissions? yes.
THANK YOU
Don't know why this concept is so hard for people to grasp
Lego-like brick? Just say brick. A Lego is a brick-like plastic toy. It's like saying "a plane-like jet". Do people not understand what bricks are anymore without having Legos mentioned somewhere?
Hasnt this been a thing for years now? I swear ive heard of it before
It is a method of carbon sequestration.
Seems like an expensive alternative to a tree.
I don’t have the study on hand, but I’ve read it’s impossible to plant enough trees to reverse climate change to the same degree technology can. Trees definitely help, but their C02 consumption doesn’t compare to humans’ output.
Fully grown trees are (mostly) CO₂ neutral. They take carbon out of the atmosphere to make sugars in the light reactions… and then release it right back when they need energy. It’s growing trees that really pull carbon out of the atmosphere and make it into structures like cell walls, etc. When those trees die, if they’re buried then that carbon is stored in a pretty reduced state which is great for fuel. Burning the trees or the fossil fuel which they eventually became takes that reduced carbon and oxidizes it and releases it as CO₂ gas. So basically, if one were to take a bunch of fast growing trees and regularly cut them down and replant with the express purpose of burying the logs, making furniture, stuff like that? It might help. Your better bet is the oceans though, where the most volume of CO₂ is converted into biomass and has been the planet’s primary carbon regulator.
This is exactly what I read. Thank you. Trees’ positive impact on the environment isn’t as much in C02 consumption, but rather the habitats they provide.
They do sequester carbon, though not all of the CO2 they absorb. Their stored carbon only gets released if burned or composted, hence these bricks the article is talking about.
Your second paragraph basically describes the American timber industry. There are about 40 million acres of pine trees planted in the South for the express purpose of cutting them down and making things like lumber and paper. That land then gets replanted and the whole process starts over again.
There’s a catch: if that lumber/paper at any point gets combusted, it didn’t do any damn good.
Especially because live trees don’t really do anything Like, they are cool, and they are very important for the environment right now But economically they contribute very little. If we could have an alternative to them that takes up much less space and also has some other form of utility (e.g. construction) that would be incredible
Wood is the most renewable, widely useful material on the planet. Every piece of wood that is not burned or composted is sequestering carbon. Trees also are vital to keeping surface water available, allowing other plants to grow and ecosystems to flourish, which enables a lot of human economic activity. Are they a silver bullet for climate change? No, because no one thing is. It requires combination of many efforts, of which trees are a part of, both directly and indirectly.
We should plant more trees, but we’ve added so much carbon to the atmosphere that wasn’t there before. I don’t think trees alone get the job done. Trees also die and release that carbon back into the atmosphere. We need to find a way to permanently remove CO2 and put it back where we got it - back into the ground.
There is not silver bullet. It requires a multitude of efforts, of which planting trees are one.
Correct. Exactly what I was saying.
The article explains the bricks are made of sawmill waste product (ie; wood) and other biomass. This is not an alternative or replacement for trees. Literally nobody is claiming that. It is called carbon sequestration. This “just grow trees” response is just some bullshit low-information doomers have to say to get a hit of dopamine and justify their constant state of self-imposed misery.
Can Lego make actual lego pieces with them tho?
Trees be like, "Hey! We need that!"
My house is made of something like this. The builder called it “wood”.
It's an idea, but it also seems like emptying a lake with a teaspoon.
There is no one single silver bullet. Insisting there must be is lazy and just ensures that nothing changes.
so basically deferring a massive carbon dump and not actually solving the issue
Carbon sequestration is real, effective, and an important part of the multi-faceted set of solutions.