To prevent possibly catastrophic climate change we can't just bring C02 emissions to zero - we have to go negative, sucking the CO2 that's already there. The best tech is a billion years old: trees. Massive Reforestation could Slow Global Warming.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-forest-restoration-could-greatly-slow-global-warming/ …
-
It does represent about 20ppm. In absence of silver bullets, might be a useful tool while we work out how to decarbonise elsewhere.
I wonder how much extra efficiency synthetic biology might achieve here. The basic cost-benefit already seems pretty good: 6 years CO2 (or 20ppm) for $300 billion is very inexpensive compared to (say) the EPA's estimate for the cost of the Clean Air Act in the US.
-
-
The article claims 205 GT is 2/3 all the CO2 generated by humans since the industrial revolution. I think they mean Carbon in CO2, not CO2. Seems like a pretty bad error, and I wonder what else is wrong in the SciAm article? Presumably not in the source.
-
Mmm. I haven’t read the sciam article and the original paper is queues for me to read later today, so I will look at those claims in more detail.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.