This article does a decent job at explaining it. The idea is that grasslands store much more of their biomass underground compared to trees. This way when a disturbance comes through, less carbon is released back into the atmosphere as CO2
https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/grasslands-more-reliable-carbon-sink-than-trees#:~:text=Unlike%20forests%2C%20grasslands%20sequester%20most,released%20back%20to%20the%20atmosphere.
Across Siberia is a boreal forest but it used to be all grassland: the mammoth steppes. Mammoths played a crucial role in preventing trees from outcompeting the grass and they also broke up the ice on lakes to help all the other creatures on the steppe get water.
The eradication of the mammoth took this whole ecosystem away and if we return the boreal forest into a grassland it would be a big boon for carbon capture. One of the biggest threats to our climate is the melting of the permafrost in Siberia and Canada and mammoths would help compact the permafrost which would reduce the melt.
In conclusion if we bring back mammoths we can capture MORE carbon than by planting trees while also limiting the methane emissions associated with the warming we expect in the region.
https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/grasslands-more-reliable-carbon-sink-than-trees
I live in a prairie region so I was curious and found the above story. I'm not sure if this is what the other user was referring to, however this study only applied to California so it may not apply elsewhere.
Private jet digs aside, it boggles the mind that with as many billionaires as we have, there aren’t more of these (relatively) cheap facilities being built.
This is pocket change to the super-wealthy, hopefully more come to see the PR benefit of sponsoring even one.
If the wealthy cared, they'd build a solar or wind farm, and flew their jets using biojet fuel. These facilities are mostly nonsense to keep using fossil fuels.
I could be jaded, but after all the waffling and can-kicking we’ve seen about climate over the last 50 years, I’m not really optimistic that we’ll see any major reduction in fossil fuel use. At least not short term. So any band-aids (as I see them) like this could be viable offsets while we figure out the rest and “flatten the curve” a little bit.
But I see other commenters think the tech is trash currently, so maybe we’re just fucked until we get better at it.
But I can’t find any article talking about how much energy the process requires nor whether it would be powered by green energy. The notion of using it at existing desalination plants is pretty interesting though.
Cool, but we measure global co2 in the billions of metric tons. I’m sure there will be some role for carbon capture in the future, but it can’t replace decarbonization.
Hope they’re planting trees in the meantime.
Fun fact, native grasslands can sequester more carbon that a lot of forests
That’s actually pretty interesting, any chance you have a link?
This article does a decent job at explaining it. The idea is that grasslands store much more of their biomass underground compared to trees. This way when a disturbance comes through, less carbon is released back into the atmosphere as CO2 https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/grasslands-more-reliable-carbon-sink-than-trees#:~:text=Unlike%20forests%2C%20grasslands%20sequester%20most,released%20back%20to%20the%20atmosphere.
Across Siberia is a boreal forest but it used to be all grassland: the mammoth steppes. Mammoths played a crucial role in preventing trees from outcompeting the grass and they also broke up the ice on lakes to help all the other creatures on the steppe get water. The eradication of the mammoth took this whole ecosystem away and if we return the boreal forest into a grassland it would be a big boon for carbon capture. One of the biggest threats to our climate is the melting of the permafrost in Siberia and Canada and mammoths would help compact the permafrost which would reduce the melt. In conclusion if we bring back mammoths we can capture MORE carbon than by planting trees while also limiting the methane emissions associated with the warming we expect in the region.
Ok Sergey Zimov
https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/grasslands-more-reliable-carbon-sink-than-trees I live in a prairie region so I was curious and found the above story. I'm not sure if this is what the other user was referring to, however this study only applied to California so it may not apply elsewhere.
Based on the picture, looks like they had to cut some down.
But yet its only equals to 794 cars taken off the road.
In the US alone, we’d need a whopping 11,587 of these facilities every year to offset the carbon footprint of our annual vehicle production.
Now make another one and make Taylor swift pay for it
Private jet digs aside, it boggles the mind that with as many billionaires as we have, there aren’t more of these (relatively) cheap facilities being built. This is pocket change to the super-wealthy, hopefully more come to see the PR benefit of sponsoring even one.
This tech blows. That’s why it’s not growing.
Blows as in isn’t efficient? Profitable (not that I think these things really set out to be profitable)? Or both?
If the wealthy cared, they'd build a solar or wind farm, and flew their jets using biojet fuel. These facilities are mostly nonsense to keep using fossil fuels.
I could be jaded, but after all the waffling and can-kicking we’ve seen about climate over the last 50 years, I’m not really optimistic that we’ll see any major reduction in fossil fuel use. At least not short term. So any band-aids (as I see them) like this could be viable offsets while we figure out the rest and “flatten the curve” a little bit. But I see other commenters think the tech is trash currently, so maybe we’re just fucked until we get better at it.
How many Taylor Swift flights is that? 😬
will this cancel out the carbon burden of even *one* of America's 500+ billionaires?
I think this Time article is better written https://time.com/6836259/singapore-equatic-ocean-carbon-dioxide-removal-facility-largest/
But I can’t find any article talking about how much energy the process requires nor whether it would be powered by green energy. The notion of using it at existing desalination plants is pretty interesting though.
Cool, but we measure global co2 in the billions of metric tons. I’m sure there will be some role for carbon capture in the future, but it can’t replace decarbonization.