Wouldn’t extending this logic to all intact forests imply cutting them down? Also more fuel for the fire.
-
-
-
No! First, for carbon, because that would ensure emissions today instead of just risking future emissions. And, no, no, no!, Because there are many great reasons to protect and love forests. Climate is not everything.
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Irrelevant to most, but for me, "nature-based solutions" are neither echoes "sport climbing is neither” a view that I may have held as a bum in J-tree in ’86. But, now at 56 I think sport climbing is good though I still do trad.http://theundercling.com/sport-climbing-is-neither/ …
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
"Enchantment of soil carbon." Love it!
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Trees to offset increased emissions a sham. But trees to absorb existing carbon needed to soak down to 350ppm. Hansen, "Young People's Burden." Doesn't have immense DAC energy use. Also Mark Harmon, Oregon State only ~15% of C released in forest fires, rest remains.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
"If phasedown of fossil fuel emissions begins soon, improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content, may provide much of the necessary CO2 extraction." Hansen et al. https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.