Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

Nutrient Cycling and Biomass Removal

• Major concern: schemes that bury or freeze whole plants also lock away nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients needed for ongoing agriculture.
• Some suggest partial processing: burn wood, capture CO₂ as carbonates, and return the nutrient-rich residue; or pyrolyze biomass so most nutrients are driven off and can be recycled.
• Others note existing agricultural practice of building humus in topsoil, but scaling this to climate impact is unclear.

Biochar and Other Biomass-Based Sequestration

• Pyrolysis to produce charcoal/biochar is repeatedly proposed as simpler and more stable than freezing: stores mostly carbon, can enhance soils, and is ancient/low-tech.
• Pushback: simple calculations suggest you’d need to convert “all plant matter several times a year” to offset emissions; scale is the core problem.

Freezing-Pile Proposal: Practical Concerns

• Structural and thermal questions: can pipes withstand the weight; can a frozen core really persist through summers; what about rain infiltration?
• Proponents argue most of the mass would remain frozen, with only a thin decomposing shell; critics worry about water percolation, loss of insulation, and long-term thaw.
• Methane and nitrous oxide from anoxic zones in the pile could be significant, possibly negating benefits; mitigation strategies are unclear.
• Risks like spontaneous combustion of wet biomass are raised.

Scale, Thermodynamics, and Efficiency

• Debate over direct air capture (DAC): some call it “thermodynamically unviable” in practice; others counter that while energy- and cost-intensive, physics doesn’t forbid it and waste heat is negligible vs greenhouse forcing.
• Photosynthesis is acknowledged as relatively inefficient compared to solar PV, limiting biomass-based approaches.
• Several comments emphasize that any biomass or DAC solution must be judged mainly by scalability and full energy/transport cost.

Alternative Sequestration Schemes

• Radical concept: convert captured carbon to silicon carbide and bury it in deserts as an effectively permanent sink; criticized as massively energy-intensive and more suitable as sci‑fi or a hypothetical doomsday device than as mitigation.
• Ocean fertilization is floated as attractive given ocean area and natural deep sequestration; others call it risky for ecosystems and physically vulnerable to storms and tectonics.
• Simpler ideas include planting fast-growing or long-lived trees, then either using harvested wood in long-lived structures or burying it under coal-forming conditions.

Renewables, Energy Growth, and Substitution

• Strong thread arguing that rapidly expanding solar/wind plus electrification (EVs, heat pumps) is the primary lever; solar is far more efficient at capturing sunlight than crops.
• Some highlight that solar additions now rival or exceed demand growth, suggesting fossil use will peak soon; others note fossil extraction is still rising and Jevons-type rebound effects remain.
• Several criticize “primary energy” metrics as misleading: electrification can cut total energy demand by 2–5× for many end-uses.

Policy, Carbon Taxes, and Equity

• Carbon taxes are widely viewed as powerful but politically difficult.
• Concerns: regressivity (hurting poorer households using dirtier energy), backlash if people are locked into high‑carbon systems, and the need for rebates or targeted support.
• Examples are given of per-capita rebates that partially offset regressivity; others argue strong taxes must be phased in gradually but that this is now late relative to climate timelines.
• Some say a tax-plus-sequestration-bounty (pay per ton reliably removed) could drive both emission cuts and drawdown.

Technology vs Behavior and Politics

• One camp: people will not voluntarily change consumption at scale; only technological fixes and price signals are realistic.
• Another camp: social and political change is essential (e.g., limiting advertising, reshaping transport and housing, diet shifts), because climate is intertwined with broader ecological damage and consumption culture.
• Several suggest a “yes, and” approach: many small and medium-size measures combined (renewables, efficiency, sequestration, policy, behavior) rather than a single silver bullet.