4.258 tons per person carbon is our carbon emissions per person per year back in 2017 in Canada. we’d have to grow forests / build structures at that *rate* to balance emissions. 
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @DanielleFong
Back in school I used to sit in the terrestrial geobiosciences reading group where we would review and share papers. I'm shooting from the hip here but I'm pretty sure that land use changes are only on the order of 10-20% of emissions effects. And they're static: eg have a max.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Mihoda
you're right, i'm imagining a scale beyond what we've ever achieved. i don't know if it's realistic, but it seems more realistic than other methods of carbon drawdown it would be easier to emit less
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanielleFong
It's a question of mass. There's only so much reservoir for carbon or nitrogen in forests. You can, and arguable should, roll back the land use to pre-settlement forests, but we can already calculate the tonnes of CO2 it accounts for. And it's fixed. It doesn't grow.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Mihoda
if i remember correctly, i heard that fossil fuels originate from the build up of cellulosic tree matter before fungi's i should state that this should obviously be only part of a solution that relies heavily on reducing emissions, however that last 20% may be very difficult
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanielleFong
The last 20%? The 3rd and 4th 20% will be incredibly difficult. The first one will be very easy. We can do that with nearly zero direct cost and at great net benefit. Getting to the 3rd and 4th will strand lots of capital, mostly physical capital.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Mihoda @DanielleFong
The biggest issue, IMO are the insane and very long-lived land use decisions behind US (and most others) growth patterns: everyone builds everyone builds everything for cars and assuming the existence of a car.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Mihoda
i qgree, but in principle we actually can largely solve transport with electrics. there's still materials and agriculture, land use, air transport, and sea and long distance transport, still very hard to make sustainable. you have to displace some of it (perhaps to biofuels))
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanielleFong
Electric vehicles can act as substitutes, but biofuels often have a lot of hidden petro feedstock in the form of NPK fertilizers and they generally have low, infeasible EROIs. FYI the airforce was one of the biggest funders of research on this some time back.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
you probably have to cut air transport, and you probably have to displace what remains; biofuels might be one way. you can certainly quibble with these estimates but the abatement cost mckinsey went with, estimated here, for biofuels, isn't the worstpic.twitter.com/miJj9rPejs
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
