But why not just like… Do that somewhere where the mass actually makes a difference? You’d be better off dumping acres full of this shit instead of regrowing a forest. Doing it in individual tanks, sparsely within a city, is both an inefficient use of resources and fucking ugly.
Trees only purpose in a city is not to clean out CO2. It’s not even their primary purpose in a city. If it was, they’d be selecting specific species etc.
Alright I’m just going off of what I learned in environmental science class this summer, not an expert here. There was something about algae blooms (usually caused by fertilizer runoff) being a really bad thing for local ecosystems. I’m not sure if this is relevant to what you’re saying, just throwing it out there lol
I mean ideally we would flood the ocean with Fe³ and spark a mass breed of this shit where it belongs. The biomass could work it’s way up the food chain as an added benefit too.
We created a big problem by injecting a lot of shit where it shouldn’t be. If we stop that, some pieces will bounce back.
Injecting more shit in another place means we have one big problem, that we haven’t stopped, and now a new problem that we don’t know the repurcussions of or how to reverse.
So uh, yeah, I’ll stick with the one beast we know over one we know and also another we don’t.
It’s okay to say you don’t understand marine chemistry, there is no shame in it.
The whole “seed the oceans with ferrous oxide” idea isn’t mine. In fact many better minds came up with it. You can check it out if you want, no pressure.
It’s funny, because your own ignorance is showing. There’s plenty of research to suggest that iron fertilization is controversial, which directly contradicts your (very condescending) assertion.
It is much easier to destroy something than it is to repair it. This applies to the original changes we made through exploitation, pollution, etc. But also to the radical change you propose, it is much easier for it to have a destructive effect compared to having a positive effect.
But why not just like… Do that somewhere where the mass actually makes a difference? You’d be better off dumping acres full of this shit instead of regrowing a forest. Doing it in individual tanks, sparsely within a city, is both an inefficient use of resources and fucking ugly.
Trees only purpose in a city is not to clean out CO2. It’s not even their primary purpose in a city. If it was, they’d be selecting specific species etc.
Alright I’m just going off of what I learned in environmental science class this summer, not an expert here. There was something about algae blooms (usually caused by fertilizer runoff) being a really bad thing for local ecosystems. I’m not sure if this is relevant to what you’re saying, just throwing it out there lol
I mean ideally we would flood the ocean with Fe³ and spark a mass breed of this shit where it belongs. The biomass could work it’s way up the food chain as an added benefit too.
But we won’t 🙃
If history taught us anything it is that purposely messing with an ecosystem seldom has the effect we want to achieve.
Better to leave it with just the environmental changes we made without intent right?
I mean, sort of?
We created a big problem by injecting a lot of shit where it shouldn’t be. If we stop that, some pieces will bounce back.
Injecting more shit in another place means we have one big problem, that we haven’t stopped, and now a new problem that we don’t know the repurcussions of or how to reverse.
So uh, yeah, I’ll stick with the one beast we know over one we know and also another we don’t.
It’s okay to say you don’t understand marine chemistry, there is no shame in it.
The whole “seed the oceans with ferrous oxide” idea isn’t mine. In fact many better minds came up with it. You can check it out if you want, no pressure.
You are being very pretentious.
Yup.
It’s funny, because your own ignorance is showing. There’s plenty of research to suggest that iron fertilization is controversial, which directly contradicts your (very condescending) assertion.
It is much easier to destroy something than it is to repair it. This applies to the original changes we made through exploitation, pollution, etc. But also to the radical change you propose, it is much easier for it to have a destructive effect compared to having a positive effect.
I agree on the first part of what you said.
But we aren’t fixing the problem either way so what’s really at stake?