• 468 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 13th, 2023


  • As someone indicated below, he’s now a living martyr. I would place money that he uses this to galvanize his following and it actually benefits him in the polls.

    He needed to die in an embarrassing way (lethal dose of ex-lax?) for it to hurt his reputation.

    I don’t buy the ‘pave the way for someone worse’ argument. Who would that be? I can’t think of anyone right now, except for maybe De Santis in terms of actually being somewhat competent.

  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOPtoMemes@lemmy.mlIsopods
    23 hours ago

    There might be some immobilization, but it would be relatively short lived, depending on the C:N ratio of the isopods ( I can’t believe I just typed that) and where the metals are stored in the isopods (again). If it’s in the chitin, release times would be slower.

    Either way, it would ultimately return to the soil. Some organically bound metal (e.g., in soil organic matter) are labile and might leach out over time but the bulk of it would be stable, I imagine.

  • I kind of shit C sequestration in general, because I think a lot of the methods out there are pipe dreams, pushed by some C-suites.

    To even have a hope in hell of dealing with climate change we need a full transition to renewables, whatever that looks like (I’m not fussy). It’s like trying to spend your way out of debt otherwise, or at the very best, taking on debt to invest, and hoping that the rate of return outpaces the rate of your loan interest.

    Part of the reason I dislike the tree planting method for C offsets for a few reasons:

    1. As you indicated, you can lose your progress to fire, which is becoming increasingly common due to climbing temperatures (loan interest goes brrrrrr…)

    2. All C storage is temporary in biological systems. While some forms can be really, really recalcitrant (biochar: half lives of 800 years or more), eventually it all gets released. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and is in fact how biological systems work, and must work to have balance, but we need to literally need to remove carbon in perpetuity from the system, as the source was geologically locked away til someone let some monkeys who were far too curious and good at running into the biology lab.

    3. When numbers are the target, forest diversity suffers. Oh fab, you planted a gazillion short-lived Aspen. Thanks for that. The deer are gonna love it but a lot of other stuff is gonna wish it had niche space.

    I’m totally with you on the deforestation/diversity part, but I think we are asking too much from trees, and for humans to not be lazy, shitty capitalists who can’t see past the end of their collective noses.

    I’m not saying I have an answer to C storage; there are some geological storage methods (like storing in tailings) that look super cool, and would remove the C for much longer times, but I’m not holding my breath, for many of the reasons I’ve touched on. Don’t even get me started on CCS plants like Hieldelberg’s pet project.

    Where I see C storage coming in, is a way to minimize the impact of future projects, in the way of scrubbers, or direct deposit methods rather than hoping to suck emission right out of the air, after the fact.

  • You don’t need continual replanting - they have seeds, remember? A later seral stage forest has typically gone through the thinning phase, where the best trees out-compete the others and choke them out. Anything that germinates now needs to compete with the overstory.

    As an aside, we can only really effectively use trees for sequestration in areas that were not productive forest before. That is, you can’t clear cut a bunch of shit, disturb the soil, and make an oil sands project and hope to come out ahead in terms of emissions/sequestration lost (without even considering oil production emission). Reclamation can help you get back to where you were, maybe… But to out perform a natural system is a tall order.