It really gets me that all those big companies claim to be carbon neutral but meanwhile they keep on fueling consumerism which causes huge amounts of emissions through the sales of their products and services.
Put it differently, these companies simply ignore the externalities resulting from their existence and their drive to maximise revenue.
@wim_v12e >Once this additional growth is achieved (and that takes decades), there is no capacity for additional carbon storage on land.
Not if you harvest and char that biomass. I ran the numbers for Sweden a while back and came to the conclusion that we could become carbon negative today if we wanted to. There's no money in burying biochar however.
This is part of the reason why I've been saying that the only way out is a global democratic planned economy.
@sa2tms What means "to char"? The only meaning I know is "to turn into charcoal". Is that it?
@wim_v12e Yes. That way it doesn't rot, which would release methane. You get syngas as a byproduct, which can be converted to oil via the Fischer-Tropsch method.
Whether charring or burying the biomass as-is is better in terms of CO2 equivalents is something I don't fully know yet. Main point is that we perform arboriculture to do this, not treating forests as static things but a slower form of agriculture.
Other things to do include rationing meat, rationing fuel, expanding public transport etc..
@sa2tms That is interesting, I didn't know about syngas etc.
I agree with all the rest, and in fact I also think a global planned economy would be ideal.
the mastodon instance at cybre.space is retiring
see the end-of-life plan for details: https://cybre.space/~chr/cybre-space-eol