culian hour ago
Trees respire. They breath in and out. At night time, many trees emit more CO2.
And trees don't exist in isolation as these napkin calculation articles consider them (spherical cows and all that). Every single tree on earth relies on mycorrhizal fungi for the vast majority of its nutrients. Fungi break things down release CO2.
Most of our oxygen comes not from forest but from oceans (specifically from phytoplankton, algae, and photosynthetic bacteria). Between 50-80% of it in fact. Likewise, most of the CO2 that has been captured has been captured by the ocean not by forests. About 25-30% of all human emissions have been captured by the ocean.
Forests (and grasslands) are tremendously important for ecosystems and our health but I think this focus on CO2 and oxygen is simply misleading. If that's your concern you should really be focusing on the ocean. Which IMO is in an even more dire strait than our forests
stavros2 minutes ago
I don't really understand this. First of all, you can just weigh the plant, and tell how much CO2 it has captured, right?
Second of all, what does it matter how much CO2 I produce? What's harmful is the additional CO2 that goes into the atmosphere for burning fossil fuels. All other CO2 is just in the same cycle that's been happening for ever.
benced12 minutes ago
This seems trivial: if you could add enough plants to your room to reduce CO2, we could easily do the same thing at planet-scale and global warming wouldn't be an issue.
moebrowne21 minutes ago
What if the plants were algae?
alnwlsn18 minutes ago
ninefathom28 minutes ago
The BBC did this in their 2012 documentary mini-series "How to Grow a Planet" with Iain Stewart. It was a lovely series; I highly recommend it.
michaelfm1211an hour ago
How is it that 132.5 watts is 3 light bulbs but 918 watts is 765 light bulbs? Is there a typo?
dynm15 minutes ago
It might not be clearly worded, but 132.5 watts is the power used by 2 incandescent light bulbs, whereas 918 watts is the power present in the light produced by 765 light bulbs. The factor of 50 comes from the fact that incandescent lightbulbs are only ~2% efficient at turning power into light.
lreman hour ago
That one final number is all one needs as a reply for "but they help a little".
tantalor43 minutes ago
> Real plants do photosynthesis through a physical process
(nit) it is more accurate to call this a biological process, or chemical process
Saying "physical process" makes me think of inclined planes, free-body diagrams, and EM fields.
roughly36 minutes ago
It's all physics at the bottom. Nature doesn't have APIs.
vitally364315 minutes ago
Yes, except parent is correct. Physcial and chemical mean very different and specific things in this context.
Calling photosynthesis a physical reaction is flatly incorrect no matter how you want to look at it. It is a physics reaction, sure, but "physical reaction" specifically means a Newtonian mechanical, reversible process at the macro scale.
A "chemical reaction" specifically means a (trivially) irreversible quantum/atomic reaction involving chemical bonds at the atomic/molecular scale.
yjftsjthsd-han hour ago
Bamboo it is.
metalmanan hour ago
no, we are useing solar PV to eliminate the excess carbon bieng added to the atmosphere, and plants, rocks, and many other natural processes will return CO² levels to a more moderate level.
cvoss36 minutes ago
Article is not about global atmospheric or climate phenomena, nor civilization scale industrial processes. It's about the CO^2 levels in your room due to your breathing.
pfdietzan hour ago
Getting CO2 back to preindustrial levels by natural processes may take 100,000 years, IIRC. There will be some drawdown, but the ocean surface waters will become more saturated with carbon and that will stall. Over a longer time scale, CO2 will be pumped down into the deeper ocean. The true drawdown will require mineralization and precipitation as calcium carbonate, a slow process. The fossil fuel CO2 emitted each year corresponds to the calcium added to the ocean by erosion over about 100 years.
JungleGymSam6 minutes ago
[dead]
JTbane34 minutes ago
Sadly I am a bit hopeless about climate change. Even if every person on earth dropped everything and started making biochar to be buried it would not sequester enough carbon to make a difference.
SoftTalker16 minutes ago
This article isn't about climate change. It's about using houseplants to absorb the CO2 you exhale in your house.
andreaja18 minutes ago
It's going to be ok.
JungleGymSam4 minutes ago
[dead]