https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/how...lq1yPxK4GSGqWcSbt5Qp-Gc#.XglpJmdapro.facebook For First Time Ever, Scientists Identify How Many Trees to Plant and Where to Plant Them to Stop Climate Crisis By Good News Network Jul 7, 2019 Around 0.9 billion hectares (2.2 billion acres) of land worldwide would be suitable for reforestation, which could ultimately capture two thirds of human-made carbon emissions. The Crowther Lab of ETH Zurich has published a study in the journal Science that shows this would be the most effective method to combat climate change. The Crowther Lab at ETH Zurich investigates nature-based solutions to climate change. In their latest study, the researchers showed for the first time where in the world new trees could grow and how much carbon they would store. Study lead author and postdoc at the Crowther Lab Jean-François Bastin explains: “One aspect was of particular importance to us as we did the calculations: we excluded cities or agricultural areas from the total restoration potential as these areas are needed for human life.” LOOK: Rooftop Panels of Tiny Plants Can Cleanse Polluted Air at 100 Times the Rate of a Single Tree The researchers calculated that under the current climate conditions, Earth’s land could support 4.4 billion hectares of continuous tree cover. That is 1.6 billion more than the currently existing 2.8 billion hectares. Of these 1.6 billion hectares, 0.9 billion hectares fulfill the criterion of not being used by humans. This means that there is currently an area of the size of the US available for tree restoration. Once mature, these new forests could store 205 billion tonnes of carbon: about two thirds of the 300 billion tonnes of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity since the Industrial Revolution.
Not sure I understand fully what you tried to say here. My point is clear: not using fossilised remains of life past for energy purposes (as in burning them for energy) but to make some stuff from it is OK, by and large, where inevitable. On the other hand, we are constantly improving, in terms of needing those for the everyday stuff, so I don't doubt our ingenuity, creativity, capacity to imagine and make possible something new, which will make our life on this planet sustainable... At the moment we are not doing it. Pollution from ICE vehicles is an absolute abomination for start! That alone would be quite an achievement, if we managed to eliminate this horror we are exposing our kids to...
I related that to the 'black/white' arguing. We don't save the earth when we go into a cave, do burn nothing anymore and do eat raw veggies again. (An analogue would be: We don't regain privacy by unplugging from the internet and never being online). Wood (stored sun energy) was 'responsible' that humankind could develop. Fossil fuels gave us plastics and other materials, energy and industry. Nature allowed us to use stored sun energy to get the knowledge and tech how to make use of sun energy directly. It's all about to recognize that the storage process took million years of time and the amount is limited. Also to recognize that the storage process IS a storage of carbon which will be released as CO2 again when burnt. We have to use the sun energy directly. Human goal must become: As many percentages of renewable energies as possible and as soon as possible. It's quite clear even because the sun is burning naturally already and delivers energy, whilst the fossil fuels need to be burnt with 'human intent'. By that all the stored carbon gets back to atmosphere and we do a major impact on nature by reversing a natural process that took millions of years. Furthermore oil is too precious just to burn it all the time. Most of our common meds are based on fossil oil.
No, fossil fuels did not give us energy and industry. They added another source of energy and a specific kind of industry was developed from it. We had industry before that, we have industry besides that industry and we shall have it when oil/coal is gone... At the beginning of XX c EVs were way more common than ICE engines etc. So, I did not argue black-white and you have not qualified your statements... The rest I agree with...
Yep, it were fossil fuels as posted. I did not mean you. It was Joe suggesting living in a cave without to burn anything any more. Fossil oil is source and most important natural source for the chemical industry, source of (if not fuel) to make dye, plastics (polymers) and pharmaceuticals. Also cosmetics. The pharmaceutical / chemical industry needs organic solvents in a large amount (obtained/synthesized from oil) for the manufacturing process and oil as base material (petrochemicals) for organic synthesis to make synthetic drugs. To be more specific. Cumene, amines, phenols, benzene. Also other aromatic compounds are used. Polymers are used to make pill capsules, as pharmaceutical additives and coating. (For instance to retard the drug). The classic common drug based on oil is Aspirin. (Benzene is used. Whenever you find the benzene ring in a simple structure you can consider it's actually synthesized from the benzene contained in / obtained from fossil fuel). When you synthesize an organic compound you have to start somewhere and to plan the synthesis. Many base compounds are obtained from fossil oil.
I'd also like to add that bio-secure packaging is made from petrochemicals, without which most of us would be dead from various diseases / infections. The problem is not so much petrochemicals, but the fact that we do -not- clean up after ourselves.
Right, sorry, Yen, of course not plastic, an error written in speed - oil/fossil fuel did not give us energy, industry etc. Edited, of course... And my points of disagreement still stand. Articles on Google must be interpreted, hence I asked an expert, Joe - for a reason... But OK, go on and be a clever arse if you must... it's your image, after all... Petrochemicals are poisoning our world in untold millions of ways! They are not just good in some ways (some medicines) but also... What would Joe say now: ever heard of Google? I posted it here a few times but did anybody retain any info? Duh!
I have deleted the personal addressing posts. "Fossil fuels gave us plastics and other materials, energy and industry." By that I mean: How did / do we get steel / iron to build factories / industry infrastructure at all? How did / do we manage transport of goods? Richard Arkwright steam spinning Jenny James Watt steam engine George Stephenson steam loco I mean manily industry 1760 and later. Anyway: How do you get iron / steel? By using fossil coal to reduce iron ore. Without (chemical) energy from fossil fuels (especially coal) there would be no single thing made of iron / steel. (Except the very rare meteoric iron). Already at Iron Age coal made from wood 'gave us' energy to make iron at all. (Also forging furnaces)
We got steel only after we had oil refineries? You know this is wrong... https://steelfabservices.com.au/who-invented-steel-a-look-at-the-timeline-of-steel-production/ Boats, ships, carts, animals, even electric vehicles at the start of the XX c - as I already mentioned but no one is listening... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle You know what is baffling: you are conflating what we do currently with what is possible, especially nowadays... AND you forget what we did before we had petrochemical industry. Weird. Almost surreal... As mentioned, this is wrong, simply incorrect... And at the end you jump into your own stomach by saying: Sorry, once again, your unqualified statements are misleading and factually incorrect on oh so many levels...
One more thing: I was driving towards this, with my Q about petrochemicals and meds... https://horizon-magazine.eu/article...could-be-made-biomass-dr-philippe-mengal.html
Gorski, the way we are thinking is very different. I don't mean content, I mean structure and perspective. We frequently get misunderstandings since we 'work' different here. I can focus and isolate a perspective, but then I jump with my thoughts...and yes some find it hard....but others have no problem. (For instance I bet that MJ has clearly got what I have posted there). It's simply about this statement: "Fossil fuels gave us plastics and other materials, energy and industry." Of course is this wrong. But I never have said that! Sometimes I think you want get me wrong with intent..lol. You won't find a piece of iron / steel (and I mean today and any day before) that hasn't been obtained by reducing iron ore (plus the very rare meteoric iron). And always carbon has been used to do that. That is fact and reasoned by Chemistry. Ground-based iron never occurs pure, it occurs as ore. Only the form of carbon has changed during history. (wood-->charcoal and then fossil coal / coke). We (humankind) were already at 100% renewable energies a long time before. The history of human energy consumption is quite interesting: First (being hunter, gatherers and fishermen) we 'only had' raw food as energy source. Then we tamed the fire and learned to cook. By that we raised the usable energy of the food. The first milestone concerning energy consumption: agriculture. Fuel still was biomass (plant remains, straw, animal feces, animal fats and oils / herbal oils and the most important one wood!) And we made use of animal power. We invented the first machines. Water- and windmills. BUT the industrial revolution came along with the usage of fossil coal! From wood to fossil coal! The breakthrough of fossil coal was benefited by the shortage of wood and charcoal AND the invention of the steam engine. By using the steam engine it was now possible to pump out mine water! It needs steam and therefore fuel and it took care that coal mines rapidly delivered more coal. Fossile fuel (coal), steam engine and industrial revolution are mutually dependent. You also can say. We (humankind) turned away from renewable energies by the industrial revolution by turning away from using wood and charcoal and turning to fossil fuels. First coal and later oil and gas. Now it's time again to get back to renewable energies again.
Yeah, what you just wrote is you echoing what I said, as if you said it first and as if you haven't driven the argument in the opposite direction... And gain, you are trying to escape your unqualified statements, as I have demonstrated earlier... The most difficult to swallow is you avoiding the "inconvenient" bits... Look at the history of steel-making and you will see what I mean... Look at the history of electric vehicles and you will see what I mean... OK, English is not your mother tongue and you are obviously not expressing yourself in the best possible manner, grammatically speaking - but it's not my mother tongue either, so... Simply put, I take you seriously, as opposed to a bunch of clowns here - hence I put what you write under proper scrutiny...
One more thing: my perspective is historical (geschichtlich), properly based, whereas you seem to be... wandering round... Your method is incoherent on these issues, sorry to have to point this out......
"How did / do we get steel / iron to build factories / industry infrastructure at all?" To demonstrate: unqualified is the bit here that "suggests" we only got iron and even steel after we had fossil fuel industry... We had both before that. Look at my link above. More importantly, we can now have it done differently. Even more importantly, we will certainly develop new technologies, based on renewables, since we must do that, as I know you agree.... Point in question: we have had industry and inventions before fossil fuel industry and we shall certainly have it after they are gone. We better!
It's important to look at how much energy goes into a specific process to determine the scope and size of the generator that's providing that energy. Could a steel furnace be powered by a Li-OH battery? Perhaps if it was big enough. How big should it be? And how would you charge such a device? There's always a trade off where nature is concerned. I.e. No free lunch. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/richard_p_feynman_104988