• Zeth0s@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Forests, algae… There is no need for carbon capture. It doesn’t do anything on scale. There is need of transformation co2, which can be done by plants and algae

    • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      Humans burnt 100’s of millions of years of plant growth within 100 years. There is no way we can significantly reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere with plants alone in a timeframe that is necessary for humanity to see a difference. There is just not enough land to plant that many trees and plants. We need all the solutions and that includes human tech.

    • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Think of biochar like humans helping plants keep the carbon out of the atmosphere. Plants are good at capturing carbon, but what happens when they die? Hell, what about all the leaves they shed? When something rots, it releases a mix of CO2 and methane (which decomposes into CO2). The idea of biochar is that it’s a way of sequestering the carbon that plants captured. For an example, you make an algae pond, harvest the algae, dry it, char it, bury it. That’s carbon that’s not going back into the atmosphere anytime soon, whereas if it was left to rot, it’d eventually wind back up in the atmosphere. You’re taking the carbon the plants captured, and processing it in a way that makes it easier to sequester.