Of course, trees should be planted, but the notion that they are an expedient way of decarbonizing the atmosphere is plainly wrong. Had nature optimized plant life to remove carbon from the atmosphere, there would be no CO2, no plants, and the planet would be a snowball instead of the vibrant, warm (too warm) climate we have today. Nature maintains stasis - and therefore life - by avoiding carbon sequestration.
You may have seen the Keeling Curve, the "graph of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii from 1958 to the present day." Notice that it goes up and then down in Seasonal Variation. This is because, during the summer months in the Northern hemisphere, all the plant life decarbonized the air to form new leaves and greenery. Then, in the winter, all the leaves fell back to the ground where they were consumed by fungi and detrivores and converted back to CO2.
Suppose we stopped producing fossil fuels tomorrow. The Keeling Curve would still have seasonal variation, but it would be against a constant mean, rather than the current rising one. If we then just planted more trees, the seasonal variation would increase, perhaps, but the mean would remain more or less constant. While beneficial, none of the planting would make more than a dent in the hundreds of billions of tons of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. The potential for soil sequestration is on the order of 1 Gt/year.[source] That doesn't mean we shouldn't practice sustainable agriculture and forestry, rather we should, but it won't reduce our carbon debt or start to reverse climate change. Believing that it will is just magical thinking, coincidentally an inadvertent implication of the meme.
Given that nature is (almost) perfectly inefficient at long-term carbon sequestration, it would seem that effective, long-term decarbonization of the atmosphere on any scale short of millennia has to include mechanical means, no matter how inefficient such means may appear.
Because crystallography and solid state chemistry is the foundation of every modern convenience?
But it's also beautiful. If they've never heard of Bravais-Friedel-Donnay-Harker, then you can't really blame them for not knowing.
Plenty of trees could be planted with $500 billion, but the timeframe to sequester the carbon the biosphere would be greatly extended. The reason that the author of the article discounts tree planting as a strategy for sequestration is that, as you may have noticed, trees release much of their carbon back into the biosphere in winter when they drop their leaves onto the ground. These leaves are then converted back into CO2 by the many fungi, bacteria, and detrivores on the forest floor.
As a result, there is more disruption caused by climate change. I think planting trees is an excellent idea, and that we should definitely do it, but it's not an atmospheric carbon mitigation strategy.
If you are interested in this, look into carbon sequestration rates of switchgrass and elephant grass.
HCP FTW.
What would be the plan to control costs? Fe2O3 nano particles aren't cheap, as you can see. At $3M per tonne and the need for, say, 10 gigatonnes to start off... That would put the cost of this plan at $30 quadrillion. I'm sure that, at that scale, the price would come down, but that's a pretty high starting point. Toss in the fact that these nanoparticles would naturally settle out over time and the costs would increase further.
No one said terraforming was going to be cheap, but at that price, there has to be a less expensive option.
Same here. I've come to the conclusion that, if I was unwilling to accept anyone that wasn't of the calibre of Carl Sagan to fill his shoes, I was probably going to wait a long time. I think Degrasse Tyson's advocacy for black scientists is admirable, as is his willingness to promote religious reconciliation. These weren't areas of focus for Sagan, but that's ok. They can be different people, even imperfect people, and maybe that's good.
Yeah, if that's what Johnny Cash was talking about, then what was Trent Reznor talking about?
I'd encourage you to think about these events as you would a physical injury. A physical injury can hurt for a long time and no amount of recognition or "processing" or "getting over it" can short-cut the all-too-slow healing that needs to take place. It's no fun and there's no way to just make it go away.
That said, you can do things that care for the injury while it is healing. I don't know what these are for you, but for me, I needed to recognize that the people I was angry at were also instrumental in helping me advance.
For example, I had a string of terrible jobs with bad bosses, but that string of terrible jobs led me to someplace that I am very happy to work. Once I realized this, it started getting easier to recognize both that the way I was treated was wrong and that I was also glad that these people were essential to me get to where I am. Even so, it was a long process and physically painful. My anger towards these people did nothing to hurt them, but it was terrible on my health.
I'm sorry you had to experience these things, but I hope they eventually lead you to someplace better.
How did you design the pendant? I've been trying to cad out a signet ring, but my current effort-to-quality ratio is terrible.
The first lines from Neuromancer by William Gibson. What a pleasant surprise.
You are not alone.
It seems to me that you are having a very reasonable reaction to a difficult situation. If I was in your position, I would also feel extreme anxiety. I know nothing about you, but, from what you have shared, I would like to commend you for your anxiety. It is evidently clear from what you write that you take your responsibilities to your employer and your family very seriously. A nonchalant attitude in the face of a life-changing event like the one you are facing would belie a lack of concern for the people closest to you, who depend on you and whom you care for.
These appear to be serious matters and you are taking them seriously, even to the extent that it causes you some extreme discomfort. This is a commendable commitment to duty and to the welfare of others.
Suppose there were a magic button that could make the anxiety disappear, however it would also cause the motivation for that anxiety - say, love, duty, commitment to excellence - it would make these also disappear. You would no longer be bothered by your precarious position, but you would also become someone unconcerned with their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those around them.
If you had such a button, would you push it?