• Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • kase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      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

    • dtc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      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 🙃

      • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If history taught us anything it is that purposely messing with an ecosystem seldom has the effect we want to achieve.

        • dtc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Better to leave it with just the environmental changes we made without intent right?

          • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • dtc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

          • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • dtc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              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?