• Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Grass does that too. And probably better.

      *Grass does not equal lawns. Go to the prairies, friends.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        You need actual biomass to physically exist, only then is carbon actually bound. Trees have much denser cellulose and stay around for longer. Ultimately, though, the answer is both. And bushes and shrubs. Just build up a whole forest. The denser you can make it, the better.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Almost every plant is carbon neutral in its life cycle, it’s a great sentiment, but it doesn’t work in the end.

          • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            I wonder how carbon-negatove a bamboo forest would be if you harvest it, turn it into charcoal (or bury in a bog or something?), rinse and repeat. Afaik charcoal sinks carbon fairly effectively (???), unless you burn it obviously.

              • Skasi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                You keep acting like trees are harming humans. Personally I haven’t been harmed by a tree before and I’m happy everytime I see one. They’re much nicer to look at, less noisy, require less roads and provide more shade than cars. Also they don’t burn fossils.

                Following your logic, since trees are carbon neutral and presumably only create problems for future generations, we’d have to go and remove all trees that exist on Earth. Sounds like something the woodcutting lobby would say.

                • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I think they’re saying that since there’s are neutral, focusing on them to fix or climate is a distraction from what we really need to do.

                  Namely stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

                  We’re still more forest, but it’s going to be hard to get that off the climate is too far gone to safely sustain one, like how so much of Canada is burning at the moment (and does now pretty much every summer).

                  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Not to mention unless we curb populations, that land will be needed for housing or food eventually. You can only go up so efficiently, and can’t rely on natural lighting with vertical farming.

            • tyler@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              They’re already doing that with trees. Just bury the wood deep enough it doesn’t decompose. Boom. You’ve locked up carbon for millennia.

      • Voyajer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        People don’t know prairie plant root systems can go more than a dozen feet below ground