• Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    Density of CO2 produced vs what trees capture is massively unequal. Yes trees can, but not on any tangible scale that would ever keep up with what we are doing to the planet.

    • excral@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yeah, agreed. Carbon capture won’t save us, not trees nor otherwise. We have to slow down what we are doing to the planet.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yes, the most that carbon capture can do is temporarily slow down climate change. It turns out the only way you can stop getting carbon from outside the carbon cycle into the carbon cycle is to stop taking carbon from outside the carbon cycle and putting it into the carbon cycle.

      But the problem with oil is that it’s really good, and it does a lot of stuff really well

      • excral@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        But the problem with oil is that it’s really good

        Oil is good because it’s cheap and it’s only cheap because we don’t pay the full bill. If we’d bill polluters for the full cost it would take to offset the emissions, it would quickly stop being economically viable to use oil in many sectors.

    • Twanquility@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Not to mention the area needed, for the amount of trees needed. Trees also decompose, so the storage function is different, but people are quick to assume.