[–] PlebeianCuck 14 points 27 points (+41|-14) ago 

And this effort will cost more energy and produce more co2 to effectively complete it will be zero net. Shit the fuck up with this carbon bullshit. One valcan releases more than all humans, trees love it. What we really need to focus on is the health of the water.

[–] 1473916381 5 points 23 points (+28|-5) ago  (edited ago)

In this thread, shills conveniently forget about basic science and that photosynthesis turns 6 CO2 and 6 H2O into 6 O2 and 1 glucose c6h12o6.

So rather than recycle that oxygen back into​ the atmosphere, globalists would rather put that carbon into rocks so we have less oxygen overall and meanwhile it does nothing to reduce the overall climate because after 100 years of massive carbon reduction that makes life on Earth grow smaller, they expect to lower the climate by .3 degrees, LOL.

Edit: here's Cellular respiration where all animals turn glucose and o2 back into water and CO2.

C6H12O6 (s) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l) + heat

[–] Apathy 3 points 21 points (+24|-3) ago 

If people were ever serious about climate, we'd first have a discussion about corporations and planned obsolescence. Then look at the biggest energy hogs/polluters and start there.

[–] weezkitty 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

basic science and that photosynthesis turns 6 CO2 and 6 H2O into 6 O2 and 1 glucose c6h12o6.

True. But that brings up another issue: Over deforestation without replanting

[–] PlebeianCuck 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Thank you for helping the poor sheeple, I applaud your efforts.

[–] TurdLord5000 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They also conveniently fail to mention that the only meaningful action that could be taken to reduce carbon emissions would basically be a genocide of China and the entire industrialized third world.

[–] BigDaddy69 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

trees love it.

It's what plants crave

[–] Dibgick 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

And leave the forests alone. The planet will take care of itself.

[–] Helios-Apollo 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

leaf the forests alone

ftfy

[–] ElectroGypsy 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

The perfect business to get into. Get paid to basically spin your wheels.

[–] 9569463 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Only if you are politically connected and your scheme is approved and given regulatory free passes. It's just another way to hide billions of dollars of theft behind a wet toilet paper layer of legitimacy.

[–] roznak 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

Planting trees would do the exact same thing, however where I live they are mass deforesting and then yell that they need more taxes for climate change.

[–] hey_girls_pm_me_toes 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Like that machine in Europe that cost millions of dollars to take co2 out of the atmosphere when they could have planted some trees.

https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/02/carbon-capture-plant-bad-investment/

[–] Thegreatstoneddragon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

And it's not even like we've got to stop using wood to build stuff. As long as it's not burnt when we're through with it, timber from managed forests can sequester even more carbon than old growth forests.

[–] PonchoKitty 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

really makes you think ((($$$)))

[–] RevoltNow 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Why is it that environmentalists have largely lost interest in stopping deforestation? I mean, forests are cool, I can get behind that even without the dubious threat of a catastrophe tacked on. And considering trees literally eat carbon (as previously pointed out) wouldn't you think this would be a pretty big deal?

Likewise real air pollution, e.g. what we would commonly be called smog, actually kills people. We found out the hard way earlier in the industrial revolution. But all they care about now is CO2. It's really pretty weird.

[–] littul_kitton 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Because you cannot tax a forest, or use it as an excuse to let your political party run a centralized command economy.

[–] Grospoliner 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Cause getting people to stop doing something is a failing strategy. Prohibition has never worked and never will. Humans are shit and you know it. It's better to have some other option available than to sit and do nothing.

[–] alele-opathic 10 points 9 points (+19|-10) ago  (edited ago)

Here is your daily reminder that water vapor, not CO2, is the 'greenhouse gas'. The reminder goes further to state that nobody actually has any fucking idea what processes affect or are affected by the levels of the primary 'greenhouse gas'.

Here is your daily reminder that CO2 is good for plants, and therefore, good for us. [PDF link]

And finally, don't forget that trees only sequester carbon as long as they are alive (this is a great website for climate science - wanted to work a link in here somewhere). When trees decay or are burned, they release all stored carbon, which effectively caps the amount of CO2 that could be stored by trees, even if the entire land area of the planet were forested. Planting trees because climate change is sophistry.

EDIT: Bonus paper published by an eccentric researcher who found that the last mega-extinction was directly caused by CO2 levels being too low.

Also, further reading for the interested: On ice cores | On climate models that relate CO2 to global temperature

[–] PupSmack 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

This is some good shit.

[–] alele-opathic 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Glad you liked. These 'factoid' comments always take longer to put together than a standard shitpost, so it is good to know it was a productive use of my time.

I have more to share too, but tried to keep things short.

[–] TurdLord5000 10 points 4 points (+14|-10) ago  (edited ago)

So... CO2 isn't hurting a damned thing. Why should we care about this insane process? Is there a shortage of graphite?

[–] malloryquinn 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

ask anyone who has a greenhouse. How do you grow great plants? PUMP IN CO2. The planet is fucking dying from a LACK of CO2. We are on a threshold of another ELE with another gas change.

[–] TurdLord5000 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Wow. What's with all the climate change shills here tonight? I cannot abide those downvoats I see on your comment. Have an upvoat.

[–] goatboy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You know what else removes CO2? Plant a fucking tree!

[–] voltagegate 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Or you know, trees and shit.

[–] meowski 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago 

Carbon dioxide is NOT POLLUTION

[–] B3bomber 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Everything is pollution if it is in excess or never existed before. This includes heat from hot water dumped into a river to cool a nuclear power plant (yes some places in the US do this and they're seeing it fuck the river's ecology).

[–] meowski 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It DID exist before. Its carbon from ancient plants. From a time when this earth was lush with huge trees and giant animals. More carbon = more vegetation = more life. And its only .04% of the atmosphere currently. Far from any risk to the biosphere. I say double it.

[–] PlebeianCuck 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Thank you

load more comments ▼ (13 remaining)