Comments by "Andre Gon" (@andregon4366) on "#20million4change" video.

There's a way to make the tree method more effective: bury the trees. Plant, grow, cut, bury. Send the carbon back to where it came from.
10
What are you doing here? This is the comment section of a video which main point is: put your money where your mouth is. As long as you aren't able to take this challenge there is NOTHING you can say to validate anyhing you come up with. Put your money where your mouth is or SHUT THE FUCK UP You're like a flattard; a coward.
2
I don't care what you have to say. 1- the data speaks for itself 2- what you're saying is still worthless as long as yiu don't put your money where your mouth is. 3- you're still a coward Make all the excuses you want, they're still worthless excuses.
2
@pluto8404 Mitigating the consequences is not the same as doing nothing.
1
@Gorbatsjov27 There are huge mines and quarries already, so the hole making is already done. All we need is cover them back up.
1
@greenthizzle4 How can methane go past 10-20 meters of dirt? Can methane phase through solid objects?
1
@MagnificentXXBastard then what prevented the natural gas from escaping from oil deposits? Or you could just turn the wood into charcoal before burying it, so you need less space, don't waste as many nutrients still left in the trees, and need less space. Much more effective and easy than just burying the trees. Spending money to get nothing in return is already hard to convince someone to do, now you want to add more work and cost? Good luck with that. Also that process is not very effective since you will be releasing CO2 to the atmosphere during that.
1
@MagnificentXXBastard Fault lines, salt domes and perfect geological conditions with multiple isolating, impermeable layers (like clay/claystone/halite) surrounding the porous media. Then I guess you CAN actually make impermeable soil. Unlike what you said in your first reply. Most carbon stays in the coal. Not the one used to heat the wood. case in point: https://youtu.be/-_qe_ITKf_0?t=664 For each portion of carbon you get, you release almost the same amount to the atmosphere as CO2. Are there more efficient ways to do it? I have no idea. Maybe you're willing to provide a link? But regardless, sending the carbon back from where it came from should be the best way to get rid of the excess carbon in the atmosphere.
1
@MagnificentXXBastard Oh, I never denied that. As a hydrogeologist, why would I? I just told you that just dirt would not be sufficient. Of course I know that, what I don't know is who was I talking to, therefore I tend to use lay terms to reach a broader demographic. If I knew you were a hydrogeologist I would have used a different terminology. An opportunity my institution is working on right now is pumping pure gaseous CO2 into suitable caverns at high pressure. Still, 1 ton of gaseous CO2 would take a larger volume than just solid carbon. Even solidifying CO2 wouldn't be as efficient as pure carbon since each atom of carbon would come with 2 atoms of oxygen, which would logically take more space. English is not my first language so it's kinda hard to present my point.
1