Topic: The more carbon in the air, the faster plants grow and store that carbon.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #119,677
Increasing carbon emissions means a corresponding increase in the carbon consumption of flora, boosting agricultural yields.Antilife liberals want to tax and ban carbon for the same reason they want to sterilize and abort the citizens.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later[^] [v] #1,311,312
Plants like it, yes. The aquarium hobby has CO2 setups if you're more into plants than fish. It's an inferior experience for animals (and humans) though. I don't own a christmas tree farm so more CO2 doesn't interest me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,314
@previous (B)
Do you like the products made from lumber? You eat food, so farm yields should matter.
Even for the things you don't make or use, it adds to the economy with more jobs and tax revenue.
Do you like the products made from lumber? You eat food, so farm yields should matter.
Even for the things you don't make or use, it adds to the economy with more jobs and tax revenue.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,315
You are making the mistake of trying to apply science, logic and rational thought to your argument. You are bound to lose if you don't at least shout.
Oh yeah, and it's specifically carbon dioxide that is crucial for photosynthesis. Anti-life liberals say carbon because they want you to imagine dirty black soot, or perhaps carbon monoxide, which is poisonous to both plants and animals.
Oh yeah, and it's specifically carbon dioxide that is crucial for photosynthesis. Anti-life liberals say carbon because they want you to imagine dirty black soot, or perhaps carbon monoxide, which is poisonous to both plants and animals.
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,321
I would hazard a guess that the OP is having a goof for the lulz
boof double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,322
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,324
This doesn't work if you remove all the forest
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,327
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
indeed, and more than once I have heard fuckleheads say, "oh there's more trees now than ever" -- *points to ten seedlings while giant log is hauled away*
yeah put the seedling on a weigh scale versus a fully grown one, think about it
indeed, and more than once I have heard fuckleheads say, "oh there's more trees now than ever" -- *points to ten seedlings while giant log is hauled away*
yeah put the seedling on a weigh scale versus a fully grown one, think about it
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,328
ALSO they don't measure co2 that's been stored by plants (it's not in the sky after)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,331
@1,311,324 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
@1,311,327 (boof)
There are sustainable lumber operations, you can replant as you harvest. No one is worrying about wheat going extinct from overharvest, there's no reason we can't treat trees the same.
Since carbon emissions quicken growth, reforesting the world would be easier if people didn't demonize the energy industry that powers our civilization.
@1,311,327 (boof)
There are sustainable lumber operations, you can replant as you harvest. No one is worrying about wheat going extinct from overharvest, there's no reason we can't treat trees the same.
Since carbon emissions quicken growth, reforesting the world would be easier if people didn't demonize the energy industry that powers our civilization.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,334
@1,311,328 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
The point is that the more you measure in the atmosphere, the faster plants are consuming it and acting as a counterforce to the emissions from human industry.
Every time you hear about record CO2 emissions, remember, we are also at record carbon capture.
The point is that the more you measure in the atmosphere, the faster plants are consuming it and acting as a counterforce to the emissions from human industry.
Every time you hear about record CO2 emissions, remember, we are also at record carbon capture.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,336
@1,311,331 (A)
we got that already, in addition to the more wreckless methods still continuing. I mean, we always can do something, but it's not that way everywhere
I'm still waiting for the miracle hemp to do its magic
we got that already, in addition to the more wreckless methods still continuing. I mean, we always can do something, but it's not that way everywhere
I'm still waiting for the miracle hemp to do its magic
boof double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,337
@1,311,334 (A)
it's not fast enough though. we need to engineer yeast to produce hair and toss the hair into caverns, which is one of my inventions I've mentioned here before
it's not fast enough though. we need to engineer yeast to produce hair and toss the hair into caverns, which is one of my inventions I've mentioned here before
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,338
Before we has megafauna we had superflora
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,340
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,344
About half of all oxygen produced and a quarter of all CO2 consumed is by plankton in the ocean.
@1,311,322 (boof)
> there are other greenhouse gases though, such as methane CH4
Trifling amount and negligible effect when compared to water vapour, which is the most potent greenhouse gas.
@1,311,322 (boof)
> there are other greenhouse gases though, such as methane CH4
Trifling amount and negligible effect when compared to water vapour, which is the most potent greenhouse gas.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,347
@1,311,331 (A)
Because wheat grows in a year while forests have been destroyed over centuries.
Because wheat grows in a year while forests have been destroyed over centuries.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,348
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,350
@1,311,347 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
You're comparing the growth of one, with the destruction of another. A proper comparison should be consistent. Forests take longer to grow, but that's irrelevant, it's the rate at which harvesting is matched with replanting that determines if a plant is increasing or decreasing.
The moment a sapling is planted it begins consuming CO2, so planting 1 tree for each chopped down will maintain a balance. Additionally, lumber products continue to store their carbon if they are not burned. A table will keep carbon out of the atmosphere for decades or even a century before it is landfilled and begins to break down. If you just let trees fall and decay naturally they release their carbon over the 1-2 years they break down in the natural way. The lumber industry is more effective at storing carbon than the hands-off approach ignorant environmentalists want.
You're comparing the growth of one, with the destruction of another. A proper comparison should be consistent. Forests take longer to grow, but that's irrelevant, it's the rate at which harvesting is matched with replanting that determines if a plant is increasing or decreasing.
The moment a sapling is planted it begins consuming CO2, so planting 1 tree for each chopped down will maintain a balance. Additionally, lumber products continue to store their carbon if they are not burned. A table will keep carbon out of the atmosphere for decades or even a century before it is landfilled and begins to break down. If you just let trees fall and decay naturally they release their carbon over the 1-2 years they break down in the natural way. The lumber industry is more effective at storing carbon than the hands-off approach ignorant environmentalists want.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 23 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,354
@previous (A)
> planting 1 tree for each chopped down will maintain a balanc
They're is a carbon cost to cut down the tree, so that's not true.
> planting 1 tree for each chopped down will maintain a balanc
They're is a carbon cost to cut down the tree, so that's not true.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,357
@1,311,350 (A)
yeah and trees are declining and have consistently over the past 500 or so years. also a sapling does not consume the same amount of co2 as one old enough to chop down obviously
yeah and trees are declining and have consistently over the past 500 or so years. also a sapling does not consume the same amount of co2 as one old enough to chop down obviously
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,359
@1,311,348 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> you are dumber than svets turds
Oh yeah? What part of what I said was dumb? Come on you ignorant dutch cunt, bring your best argument, and do better than a lame ad hominem this time.
> you are dumber than svets turds
Oh yeah? What part of what I said was dumb? Come on you ignorant dutch cunt, bring your best argument, and do better than a lame ad hominem this time.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,372
@1,311,354 (G)
Some carbon is released when you cut down a tree, but most is locked in the lumber itself.
Every time you plant and harvest a tree there is a net reduction in carbon.
Some carbon is released when you cut down a tree, but most is locked in the lumber itself.
Every time you plant and harvest a tree there is a net reduction in carbon.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,373
@1,311,357 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
The trees that you planted 5 years ago are much larger and consuming more carbon, though. Point being that as long as you match it 1-to-1 eventually it does balance out, because all those saplings will eventually be large mature trees.
The only big difference between letting nature take its course and operating a lumber industry is that the lumber industry actually locks up that carbon for a century as treated wood that won't just decay and release 100% of it's carbon the way a naturally fallen log will.
The trees that you planted 5 years ago are much larger and consuming more carbon, though. Point being that as long as you match it 1-to-1 eventually it does balance out, because all those saplings will eventually be large mature trees.
The only big difference between letting nature take its course and operating a lumber industry is that the lumber industry actually locks up that carbon for a century as treated wood that won't just decay and release 100% of it's carbon the way a naturally fallen log will.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,375
@1,311,372 (A)
It costs carbon to harvest and transfer the lumber, to turn it into furniture and to transport the furniture to the store and again to the home.
It costs carbon to harvest and transfer the lumber, to turn it into furniture and to transport the furniture to the store and again to the home.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 31 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,383
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,386
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,391
@previous (G)
You're absolutely correct, we shouldn't make or transport furniture. From now on I will just sit on the floor!
You're absolutely correct, we shouldn't make or transport furniture. From now on I will just sit on the floor!