Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It may not have been bioavailable as oil or coal, but it is possible to sequester carbon in a way that accumulates fertility in the soil. That not only restores the declining fertility we have in general, by increasing fertility in general, people are better able to feed themselves in general.

Furthermore, greater fertility supports a greater diversity of ecosystems, which enhances the resiliency of the overall living system. Greater overall resiliency helps bring basic security to the people and the land (the basic level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), and enables us to develop our own potential (self actualization), and our relationships within our ecosystem.

As an example, carbon can be sequestered in the form of biochar. Carbon in that form is not bioavailable to plants so much as bioavailable to fungi. The fungis don’t consume it so much as live in it. It becomes hydrophillic, and allows the soil to hold a lot more water and nutrients. That in turn enables greater fertility. Since it is not consumed, it can act as a long-lasting soil amendment (greater than a thousand years).

Human-made biochar is the reason there are some spots in the Amazon that supports and holds a great deal of fertility, enough to support a vast civilization (that only got destroyed by infectious disease from Europe during the colonial period). Without biochar, the frequent rain washes away nutrients, making those part of the jungle fragile.




>by increasing fertility in general, people are better able to feed themselves in general.

but if you're using that fertile soil to grow food, wouldn't that mean the carbon is going to be un-sequestered?


Your question is answered in detail, and in the negative, in the very post you're replying to.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: