Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Many kind of trees can grow on land that's not agriculturally viable.



Spreading a few million tons of powdered iron ore over the southern ocean will capture vast quantities of carbon in the resulting plankton boom, will feed enormous schools of fish and precipitate to the ocean bottom where it will lay captured for millennia.

You don't need vast forests to capture carbon. You need one soon to be retired 30 year old panamax ship. A cargo hold full of ore (~50$/ton + 20$ powdering), and a on-board pump/aerator.


...and a willingness to accept any unintended or unforeseen consequences.

The burden of proof that "iron fertilization" (or any other geo-engineering technique) will even result in a net reduction in anthropogenic climate change — leaving entirely aside, you know, not actually being harmful — is on the people who want to do it. As much as CO₂, &c, is a problem that begs for something to be done, I don't think that's been adequately demonstrated yet.


What does that mean ? What would be "adequately demonstrated" for rosser would be wildly risky for fooman, and overly risk averse for ageofwant.

ageofwant is satisfied that given the limited trials so far and the Russ George "experiment", which by all indications were wildly successful, large scale ocean seeding trials is called for.

Given the risks associated with doing nothing, and the relative low cost of a large trial, it would be silly, nay morally indefensible not to.


I really want you to be right on this. Way more than I want me to be right.

But the consequences of being wrong on some of the things being suggested to combat climate change could be tremendous, and in some cases even worse than the problem they're being used to solve.

I don't know where the balance that needs to be struck lies, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere on the far side of:

"Welp, sounds good to me!" — some dude on the internets


This is certainly true, but we are talking about absolutely staggering amounts of land. As it stands now, ~30% of our planet's landmasses are covered in forest. Also, some kinds of forest are much better at sequestering carbon - specifically, the tropical rainforests that are being cut and burnt in the tropics.

Re-forestation is part of the solution, but it's no panacea.


> Re-forestation is part of the solution, but it's no panacea.

I hadn't meant to suggest it was. I'm merely saying that any approach to our carbon problem that doesn't include planting trees is inadequate.


> Re-forestation is part of the solution, but it's no panacea.

Ahh, I misunderstood, my bad. I thought you were arguing that reforestation was not even worth the effort.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: