this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
222 points (99.1% liked)

science

27278 readers
228 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca 42 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I think microbes are probably a lot easier, faster, and more cost effective to produce compared to plants. It can survive in harsh conditions and create rock from the C02 at a fast rate according to the article.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, one of the issues with plants is that they don't remove the CO2 from the cycle. It's only a temporary storage, unless you bury them in airtight containers, or do something else to process them. Coal was effectively permanently sequestered. A tree, when it decomposes or burns (also decomposition), the carbon is right back into the environment. Turning it into rock is effectively permanent, unless we decide to release it.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Not only that, but they believe the active enzymes in the microbe can be optimized and engineered, then mixed into a liquid substrate. Becomes an enzyme-based CO2 filter with the byproduct of Calcium Carbonate, which can be used in concrete. The article talks about filling trucks with these and passing the emissions of coal-fired power plants through them.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

That would be an incredible innovation. You don't have to stop at coal either, it's just the dirtiest. Nat gas, trash, oil, wood and anything else burned on a huge scale could be curbed.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Yep, you could even pepper the interstate highways of America with them and just let them passively eat the CO2 particles that cars are putting out.

[–] YoureHotCupCake@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What about all the farting that cows do?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That's methane. And it's mostly from their poop, not farting.

It's a disaster. And that industru is also a major cause of deforestation.

We have to stop buying meat.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

IIRC, most of its from their mouth actually. They're ruminants, meaning they're fermenting their food in their multiple stomachs. This is where most of the Methane is produced, and the pressure is released through their mouths.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it's mostly their poop.

The "cow farts" and "cow burps" phrasing is used to downplay the seriousness of the issue.

Global animal agriculture produces enormous quantities of cow poop, which produces enormous quantities of methane, which is one of the biggest causes of the climate catastrophe.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

This says otherwise.

Anyway, yeah, I agree. It's all a distraction. I don't know how sayings it's poop helps. The problem is cattle farming produces a ton of methane. The details don't really matter.

[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

The trouble with cow farts is the methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas that eventually turns back into CO2 in the atmosphere anyway. Concentrated methane sources tend to either be captured for use as fuel, or flared with a burning flame to reduce the greenhouse effect (at which point carbon sequestering might work). Less concentrated sources, like livestock farts, can't really be dealr with in the same way.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well that would be a disaster

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A bigger disaster than dumping it into the atmosphere?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago

A bigger disaster than shutting down all fossil fuel based power plants yesterday