Agreed, but shitty, self-serving execution isn’t a tree specific issue. It’s a shitty capitalist company putting profit above preventing global catastrophe issue. Unless that’s prevented, they’ll do the same to every sequestration method possible.

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.

You’re giving them a lot of credit by suggesting they even thought about the potential consequences for their consumers.

I was coming to post the same. Those fucking clickers were so stupid and overpriced, all so my biochem professor could poll the class AND grade everyone on their results. Results to questions about material that was JUST taught in the same lesson. Good thing everyone benefits equally from lecture, right? Fuck that guy.

That’s pretty much what they did anyhow, just with way more steps.

Have you installed it on an NES yet? Because that kinda happened: https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/you-can-sort-of-run-linux-on-an-nes-demo-shows-a-unix-like-os-running-completely-on-the-nes

“Fiscal conservative” was always just a reputable seeming veneer for “we’d rather let poor people die than tax the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else”.

Holy shit. I get it! That’s a great explanation and I really appreciate your taking the time to type it all out. I’m glad we don’t have Lemmy medallions to award but, if we did, I’d give you one. I now see how a 100% reserve requirement, i.e., all deposits completely backed in cash, would entirely change banking.

The only thing that feels weird to me is the virtual money the bank creates doesn’t seem go away once it’s paid back. For example, if a mini bank only had $1000 and lent $900 with a 10% reserve, they’d end up with $1900 once the loan is repaid (ignoring interest). Or does the $900 they lent create a -$900 for the bank that is cancelled through repayment?

I’ve been thinking about it and it still doesn’t make sense. I’m a scientist, not an economist, so it’s wildly out of my wheelhouse. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

Here’s where I’m hung up. Let’s assume a 10% fractional reserve and, for the sake of simplicity, just one bank and a dramatically simplified deposit/loan scenario, just to minimize the number of hypothetical people and transactions.

Person A deposits $1000. Bank lends $900 to person A which is sent to Person B.

Person B deposits $900. Bank lends $810 to person B which is sent to Person C.

Person C deposits $810. Bank lends $729 to person C which is sent to Person D.

Person D deposits $729. Bank lends $656 to person D which is sent to Person E.

Let’s stop there. So we have one initial deposit of $1000, which has resulted in an additional $2,493 in deposits ($3,493 in total) and $3,095 in loans. The bank is now receiving payments, plus interest, on over 3x the amount of actual money it was actually given. To me, it seems like the bank is figuratively “printing money” and gaining interest on it. Nothing I’ve read on fractional reserve lending has suggested this is incorrect.

Halp!

I learned to pick locks in my youth. I absolutely have picked my way into places and things to fuck with friends and family, but I always tell them. At some point.

One of my favorites was getting into my friend’s garden shed and turning everything upside down, then a few weeks later rearranging everything so it was a mirror image of how it was previously.

I’m always surprised how few people know about this. The banks are literally gaining interest on money they never had. It should be illegal.

Does it look purple to you too?

Little Grandpa story time:

Ponies are generally nicer than horses, but I was raised believing ponies were angry, vicious little assholes. My father was bucked off of a pony in his twenties, causing him to break a rib and paralyze half of his diaphragm. Being the actual asshole in this story, he never stopped to think that maybe he was too heavy and too drunk for a pony, so he spread pony hate throughout his life. I want angry ponies as I dislike my father and on a primal level think they’d keep me safe from people like him, like two pissy, grass eating charms to protect against narcissists.

But how else will they get a bigger house? Nicer, larger yacht? More private jets?

Like, I kinda understand the “more more more!” mentality. As my income has gone up over the years, there’s always something more my monkey brain tells me I should want. A nicer, more comfortable car. A new video card. Two angry ponies. You know how it is. I tell it to shut up because I have more than enough already.

I’m not a sociopath, though, so at no point has my monkey brain told me to enslave others so I can have nicer stuff.

I’m so sorry. I’ve been in a similar situation and I know how it just makes you feel gutted. I’m glad you’re free of someone like that, though.

Gary M. Zalewski is listed as the inventor. He is listed on 99 patents, several of which are related to increasing advertising proliferation and penetration. He’s basically a driver of enshittification. My favorite was “System and method for taking control of a system during a commercial break”. Can’t have the plebs changing channels!

I looked him up on LinkedIn and he looks exactly like you’d imagine. Fuck you, Gary. Fuck you.

That’s what we did. We were told the negative criteria were frequent driving, night driving, and all the driving BS you’d expect - hard stops, fast corners, etc. The company used a phone app, so we only installed it on my phone, had it disabled most of the time, and enabled it once or twice a week for a painfully slow drive to the grocery store just around the corner.

We had an amazing score which resulted in… No discount! We actually paid more. We got some bullshit low percentage off which was simultaneously offset by a mid-year rate increase. They claimed they had to reevaluate our rates any time they added a discount. Total bullshit.

Good point. I’m curious how the total amount of energy and resources utilized to grow, harvest, and char algae compares to direct CO2 removal. Ultimately, I just want something that works without generating another issue.