HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
40% Positive
Analyzed from 776 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#ocean#more#carbon#light#process#plants#reaction#scale#oxygen#comes
Discussion (27 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
A startup has solved this problem the following way (for example): grow microalgae near a very dry desert, and bury it in trenches. It never decays and thus never releases CO2 due to lack of water.
Basically, we'd have to permanently stick it back underground again.
And trees don't exist in isolation as these napkin calculation articles consider them (spherical cows and all that). Every single tree on earth relies on mycorrhizal fungi for the vast majority of its nutrients. Fungi break things down release CO2.
Most of our oxygen comes not from forest but from oceans (specifically from phytoplankton, algae, and photosynthetic bacteria). Between 50-80% of it in fact. Likewise, most of the CO2 that has been captured has been captured by the ocean not by forests. About 25-30% of all human emissions have been captured by the ocean.
Forests (and grasslands) are tremendously important for ecosystems and our health but I think this focus on CO2 and oxygen is simply misleading. If that's your concern you should really be focusing on the ocean. Which IMO is in an even more dire strait than our forests
I think you are probably right, but could you kindly elaborate and provide more details? Very curious to hear your view and learn more.
That fact checks out: about 70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans. It follows that most photosynthesis, thus oxygen comes from oceans.
And at least the forest soil has the same amount of carbon stored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAbyUaLN2QA
*youtuber
Second of all, what does it matter how much CO2 I produce? What's harmful is the additional CO2 that goes into the atmosphere for burning fossil fuels. All other CO2 is just in the same cycle that's been happening for ever.
EDIT: My child comment is dead and vouching doesn't resurrect it, but now the post makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
Because the author of the piece is worried about the CO2 levels in their home, not about global warming. (well maybe they are worried about global warming too, but that's not what this is about)
(nit) it is more accurate to call this a biological process, or chemical process
Saying "physical process" makes me think of inclined planes, free-body diagrams, and EM fields.
Calling photosynthesis a physical reaction is flatly incorrect no matter how you want to look at it. It is a physics reaction, sure, but "physical reaction" specifically means a Newtonian mechanical, reversible process at the macro scale.
A "chemical reaction" specifically means a (trivially) irreversible quantum/atomic reaction involving chemical bonds at the atomic/molecular scale.