>>"There are offsets that work well enough--funds that go toward rebuilding ecological systems that also draw down carbon."
The problem is that if I plant an oak or redwood to do long-term carbon capture, it won't be doing a meaningful reduction for decades to centuries. So while noble in itself to spend money towards rebuilding ecologica…
>>"There are offsets that work well enough--funds that go toward rebuilding ecological systems that also draw down carbon."
The problem is that if I plant an oak or redwood to do long-term carbon capture, it won't be doing a meaningful reduction for decades to centuries. So while noble in itself to spend money towards rebuilding ecological systems, the idea that they will replace the carbon lost due to human disruption on an immediate or even decadal time frame is misguided at best. The accounting portion would be a nightmare; do you base offsets on the type of tree. or its current mass, or *potential* mass? How would you account for loss in a wildfire or other natural disaster?
Personally I don't think the government should be involved in trying to fix anything about the carbon issue when it's so bad at appropriating tax monies now. It's only going to get worse over time, not better.
We're already able to measure the amount of carbon stored in land and ocean systems, apparently. So, it would seem that, putting much attention into it, we could make this more granular.
Carbon is well mixed in the atmosphere but less so in the oceans due to stratifying effects of temperature and depth; are you implying that we could somehow calculate a specific tonnage of offset via tree planting based on growth rates and species for **every single tree planted**?
>>"There are offsets that work well enough--funds that go toward rebuilding ecological systems that also draw down carbon."
The problem is that if I plant an oak or redwood to do long-term carbon capture, it won't be doing a meaningful reduction for decades to centuries. So while noble in itself to spend money towards rebuilding ecological systems, the idea that they will replace the carbon lost due to human disruption on an immediate or even decadal time frame is misguided at best. The accounting portion would be a nightmare; do you base offsets on the type of tree. or its current mass, or *potential* mass? How would you account for loss in a wildfire or other natural disaster?
Personally I don't think the government should be involved in trying to fix anything about the carbon issue when it's so bad at appropriating tax monies now. It's only going to get worse over time, not better.
We're already able to measure the amount of carbon stored in land and ocean systems, apparently. So, it would seem that, putting much attention into it, we could make this more granular.
Carbon is well mixed in the atmosphere but less so in the oceans due to stratifying effects of temperature and depth; are you implying that we could somehow calculate a specific tonnage of offset via tree planting based on growth rates and species for **every single tree planted**?
It's very complex science. Currently, there are attempts at this with varying accuracy.
But, the principle holds: biodiverse and intact ecosystems sequester carbon and increase resiliency to climate change. This is a strong truth.