There are NO simple solutions. It's time that we understood that.

 Recently there was a study about carbon sequestration in farm land.  The idea - say it with me now, is a simple one.  We remove carbon dioxide out of the air and store it in plants.  That's what plants do right?  It's called the Carbon cycle.

Well...yes.  It actually does work.  All we really need to do is stop plowing.  We grow low growing plants - like milkweed; which by the way butterfly's love so bonus points - which have been showing to store carbon right after the harvest, we then increase the amount of permanent grassland.  We start to practice agroforestry and lot more and restore the wetlands!   CRISIS PREVENTED!!!  

Wow!  That was simple.  Good job everyone; see you next Tuesday at the Vegan BBQ and bowling night.

On a small scale it really is a simple solution and I'm doing a bit of that myself.  I've let part of my yard go wild and it will, one day, be absorbed back into the forest from which it came.   It's a natural carbon sink.  

Here are a few problems and this is why nothing is ever simple:

1. This type of carbon sequestration can take years and have to be managed strictly.   It's simply too easy for someone to come along and undo all the good work that has been done.  Even if the land stays farmland, if it's not managed correctly (like they start to plow the soil) then all that good work is gone.
2. Food security comes into play.  Generally speaking native plants are preferred for these types of projects for a variety of reasons.  However if monocrops are used or the crops used do not provide good yields, then we lose biodiversity and can actually end up making things worse.
3. Land is valuable.  Some developer comes along and puts up a parking lot.   See issue # 1. 

Research shows that the most effective carbon sinks are actually the most at risk places on earth.  Our Tundra's have stored carbon and methane yet as the planet warms these greenhouse gases are being released at alarming rates.   Sea-grasses suffer from warming ocean waters, where as mangrove forests and salt marshes face threats from development and pollution.   Our tropical forests have always been on the brink and may actually be at a tipping point.  

We are better off trying to protect these areas than developing them.  Sadly, as in the case of the tropical forests, they are in some of the world's developing countries and are simply seen as a resource to be developed and exploited.    

Human extinction may be a very real possibility and in some sick sort of way...I sort of welcome it.

Which is why I have to question the whole "carbon capture and storage" argument as of late.  

In America, the Republican Party is just starting to actually admit that the climate change is real and proposes planting a trillion trees as a solution.  However they conveniently forget exactly how much land would be needed to do this - roughly 3 times the entire country of India  - as well as how long it would take.  Some simple math shows that it would take roughly 31,000 years. 

Notice how I didn't say anything about biodiversity or native plants.  Neither did they.

In other words, the Republican Party, and several large corporations that are backing this project, is doing nothing (again) to help the situation.   I'm not saying that we shouldn't plant trees, because we should.  It's just that simple solutions simply are not the answer.  

The explosive growth of "green power" is certainly going to help alleviate the issues facing mankind right?  Well, yes.  It's not going to solve all our problems and there are tradeoffs.  

For examples wind turbines that were built 20 or 25 years ago are simply wearing out.  The parts that are needed to repair them are simply no longer made or no longer possible to obtain, and that is being addressed in a variety of ways...but until those parts are available, to many turbines sit without producing energy.

Often the argument that wind turbine blades are not recyclable is tossed around by those that oppose them; again this argument doesn't hold water.  The blades can be recycled but the process is not an easy one and frankly the industry for recycling fiberglass is still being developed.  However it shows promise as this material is being recycled into roads and bridges, new construction and even new turbine blades. It's still a new and developing field.

The same argument is often applied to solar batteries and panels.  Again, there are some issues with any new technology and I'm concerned that the rare earth materials that are being mined are being mined in sustainable ways.  This hasn't always been the case in the past.  

However that is the price we have to pay.  I'm all for a better world, I'm all for the reduction of green house gasses and the development of solar power.  In the long run it makes sense...but we have a price to pay for it.

However unlike many people, if you're going to walk the walk and talk the talk...then you have to be willing to give up more.  To be inconvenienced.   

I had a friend bitching about the banning of plastic grocery bags on a social media site the other day.  While the meme he posted does have a point, it also failed to recognize some things either on purpose or unintentionally.

Starting small is certainly helpful.  It's a small inconvenience to remember to bring reusable cloth or paper bags to the store; and God knows I've walked out to my car to get them after forgetting to bring them into the store.  Here is what the meme doesn't tell you.   There are 5 TRILLION plastic bags produced yearly just in America alone.   That works out to be roughly 1 bag per person every 4.5 days.   

Only 1 % of that is every recycled.  

While I agree that I would love to see milk being repacked in glass bottles or recycling made mandatory or getting my sliced ham in paper...plastic bags are only a huge contributor to pollution.  Banning them, while not solving the problem does help reduce our reliance on plastic.  It's a simple solution but again, it's not addressing the bigger issues.

No, we will never do away with plastic entirely.  Nor will we ever do away with big oil.  Our modern lives are too dependent on this material.

This actually is the point to this whole rant.   We are not going to save ourselves via simple solutions.

We are looking at a future where disease will ran rampant.  Flooding, droughts and wild fires are going to become more common.  Strains on the environment and global warming are going to lead to mass migrations of people fleeing north to America and Europe and we simply are not addressing those realities.

We are simply not being realistic about what is to come.   It's about time we were.  While I love that movements like Solar Punk - an artistic and literary movement about a blending of technology and nature for a more free and equitable future - give people hope it's not solving the real underlying issues.

Solar Punk should not be so much concerned with the future but the here and now, and what we can do to address the psychology of climate change.  For example, how we can possibly adapt to the future where a disease could wipe out entire families and how do you provide aid and emotional/financial support to those individuals?  

There are people working on these problems, solutions are being found.  It's an uphill battle but one worth fighting.  We are just not going to win without a huge number of causalities.

You don't give up hope in the future however.  You never do.  

It's time we admit to ourselves however that even though we can recycle, reduce, reuse; plant trees, eat vegetarian and vegan dishes and do those 1001 little steps to help reduce our carbon footprint...it's not going to be enough but we have to try.

We don't have any choice in the matter.