• 3 Posts
  • 404 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 28th, 2024

help-circle

  • It takes some time for some people to come around and figure things out for themselves.

    I saw a small number of folks posting early on that Israel’s war on Gaza was a genocide and getting dragged HARD for it. I’ve lost count of how many people said I was an antisemite for being skeptical of Israel’s official news releases because “Israel was just defending itself”. Now Lemmy is majority pro-Palestine and recognizes the Palestinian genocide. Looks like a bunch of you were wrong…







  • You’re 100% right all throughout your comment chain. I’m similarly outraged.

    I have an eclectic employment history that includes set safety and theatrical firearm safety. Based on the information available, production was grossly negligent here.

    Just like any other industry, if employees are harmed due to negligence, those responsible for that negligence should be held accountable. Given Baldwin (and production in general) was aware of crew concerns, safety gaps, and previous near misses and had the ability to address those issues but failed to do so, they all should absolutely be held accountable.





  • You don’t need continual replanting - they have seeds, remember?

    That’s what I was implying with the bit about “trees accomplishing replanting themselves”, but I can see how that’s not clear.

    Overall I super agree. My grad studies (put vaguely so I don’t dox my ass) were the microbiological aspect of a project examining carbon cycling in various growth stages of forest. Some people shit on trees as a method of carbon sequestration but a healthy, diverse forest can really pack it in, especially in early to mid seral stages, and retain it long term.

    Plus humans have deforested the hell out of so much of the planet, returning some of it to closer to its previous state has far reaching benefits beyond chipping away at climate change.


  • Keep in mind that decomposition is for the growth and maintenance of the organisms doing the decomposing, meaning some of that carbon is incorporated into the decomposers, not released to the atmosphere. It would take years or even decades for a dead tree to release most of its captured carbon to the atmosphere. It will eventually happen, though, which is why you need a continual cycle of new growth that helps minimizes net losses due to decomposition.

    It’s not perfect but it’s something and done right, which the vast majority of tree carbon credit programs are NOT, is a self perpetuating method of carbon capture.


  • Trees aren’t completely ineffective at carbon capture, they just need to be used properly and with knowledge of their limitations: much of their carbon will be released rapidly in the event of a fire (around 20% of a tree’s mass is underground, which is why I don’t say all), the carbon they captured will be released over a course of years after they die, and carbon capture rates aren’t static and will sharply decline at a certain point. To keep such a project going requires continual replanting, much of which can be accomplished by the trees themselves if the project is done properly.

    Most tree based carbon credits are pure scams and were always intended to cheat the system. Done honestly, we could still use trees for carbon credit but you’d need a LOT more trees per unit credit (compared to current scheme rates if they were even honest) and the project would have to estimate likely potential carbon losses and bake those into the valuation.