I've just been listening to the book 'Entangled Life' by Merlin Shedrake. It has a section about 20 minutes into the seventh chapter about the role fungi take in the carbon cycle. It accounts for most of the carbon that is returned from trees back into the atmosphere. It has quite a bearing on the carbon that is released, but also contains ideas around hold it back. Mycologists describe coal as wood that fungi didn't find, which also implies that fungi evolution since the Carboniferous only make the whole problem more intractable. It's interesting, but also, it sucks.
That's a fascinating way to look at it. It's true that fungi are crucial in the breakdown of wood and I'm not sure what eats wood apart from fungi (I know that there are some insects, but I'm not sure to what extent they are dependent on fungi to do so).
I think the thing they share is the LME - lignin modifying enzyme. So I imagine that's in the digestive tract of borer and related critters as well as fungi.
I’m absolutely not even an amateur in this subject, but somehow I felt I understood something. I’m sure it’s purely because of your style of writing. I’m going to read it along with my 11 years old daughter. A weekend project with her.
But just quick question. It’s a bit demoralizing for all those individuals and nonprofit organizations across the globe who think in their day-in and day-out that they are contributing to reduction of carbon emissions by planting more. They take pride and publish numbers of their plantations regularly. But your post is full of empirical evidence, so can’t be argued much by a layman like me. But while planting more doesn’t help without reducing our emissions, is there a post on your newsletter suggesting ways to reduce carbon emissions? At corporate level, we can’t prevent industries from existing, because even governments depend on them for monetary reasons. At individual level, can we go back to times when there were no refrigerators, no air conditioners, no cars and trucks, etc.? Do these so-insanely-advertised electric cars really contribute to this issue without actually giving rise to new problems for humankind to tackle, such as ‘proper and harmless dumping of batteries’? What are your thoughts?
Thanks if you read my comment fully. Just got a bit shaken reading your post and had to blurt out this much. Cheers.
I'm glad you found this easy to understand and I'm sorry it was a bit demoralising - that is something I struggle with in my writing sometimes.
I do think that it's good to plant trees, as long as they are planted in the right place, but it is a sad reality that it can't substitute for the drastic reduction in emissions.
I've done a couple of earlier articles which included solutions and action - I'm not sure if you saw those so I've linked them here. The first one is focused on suggestions for personal action, and the second has some more big picture information about solutions as well as suggestions.
I'm somewhat hopeful about the technological changes we are making. The reading I have done does suggest that things like electric cars are a step in the right direction, even accounting for things like the batteries. But we probably can't afford our current rate of private car ownership.
A stark reminder that even the most ambitious offsetting projects will be nowhere near enough - we must reduce our emissions, and recapture the vast amounts of CO2 we've already emitted.
I've been skimming the debates around offsets via planting trees, and this was a very helpful round-up - thank you. I'm always amazed (read: frustrated) by how easily the our focus is diverted towards simple-sounding-but-ineffective solutions. Thank you so much for explaining these complex topics in such a clear way, while always being honest in areas where there is active debate.
I've just been listening to the book 'Entangled Life' by Merlin Shedrake. It has a section about 20 minutes into the seventh chapter about the role fungi take in the carbon cycle. It accounts for most of the carbon that is returned from trees back into the atmosphere. It has quite a bearing on the carbon that is released, but also contains ideas around hold it back. Mycologists describe coal as wood that fungi didn't find, which also implies that fungi evolution since the Carboniferous only make the whole problem more intractable. It's interesting, but also, it sucks.
That's a fascinating way to look at it. It's true that fungi are crucial in the breakdown of wood and I'm not sure what eats wood apart from fungi (I know that there are some insects, but I'm not sure to what extent they are dependent on fungi to do so).
I think the thing they share is the LME - lignin modifying enzyme. So I imagine that's in the digestive tract of borer and related critters as well as fungi.
I’m absolutely not even an amateur in this subject, but somehow I felt I understood something. I’m sure it’s purely because of your style of writing. I’m going to read it along with my 11 years old daughter. A weekend project with her.
But just quick question. It’s a bit demoralizing for all those individuals and nonprofit organizations across the globe who think in their day-in and day-out that they are contributing to reduction of carbon emissions by planting more. They take pride and publish numbers of their plantations regularly. But your post is full of empirical evidence, so can’t be argued much by a layman like me. But while planting more doesn’t help without reducing our emissions, is there a post on your newsletter suggesting ways to reduce carbon emissions? At corporate level, we can’t prevent industries from existing, because even governments depend on them for monetary reasons. At individual level, can we go back to times when there were no refrigerators, no air conditioners, no cars and trucks, etc.? Do these so-insanely-advertised electric cars really contribute to this issue without actually giving rise to new problems for humankind to tackle, such as ‘proper and harmless dumping of batteries’? What are your thoughts?
Thanks if you read my comment fully. Just got a bit shaken reading your post and had to blurt out this much. Cheers.
I'm glad you found this easy to understand and I'm sorry it was a bit demoralising - that is something I struggle with in my writing sometimes.
I do think that it's good to plant trees, as long as they are planted in the right place, but it is a sad reality that it can't substitute for the drastic reduction in emissions.
I've done a couple of earlier articles which included solutions and action - I'm not sure if you saw those so I've linked them here. The first one is focused on suggestions for personal action, and the second has some more big picture information about solutions as well as suggestions.
https://theturnstone.substack.com/p/talking-about-climate-change-13
https://theturnstone.substack.com/p/talking-about-climate-change-9
I'm somewhat hopeful about the technological changes we are making. The reading I have done does suggest that things like electric cars are a step in the right direction, even accounting for things like the batteries. But we probably can't afford our current rate of private car ownership.
Excellent discussion...but overall, quite scary!
Thanks, I appreciate it. I scare myself sometimes unfortunately.
A stark reminder that even the most ambitious offsetting projects will be nowhere near enough - we must reduce our emissions, and recapture the vast amounts of CO2 we've already emitted.
I've been skimming the debates around offsets via planting trees, and this was a very helpful round-up - thank you. I'm always amazed (read: frustrated) by how easily the our focus is diverted towards simple-sounding-but-ineffective solutions. Thank you so much for explaining these complex topics in such a clear way, while always being honest in areas where there is active debate.
Thanks Jenny. I share your frustration with the way we get sucked into quick fixes which don't really work. It's a bit depressing really.