Tiresia

Based on my amateur understanding, it actually seems possible if climate change gets bad enough. When the calcium carbonate of plankton, seashells, and limestone reacts with the carbonic acid that defines the acidic zone, you do get an increase of gaseous carbon dioxide in the water.

The main chemical reaction is

CaCO3 + 2 H2CO3 -> Ca(2+) + 2 HCO3(-) + CO2 + H2O

The chemical reaction by which seashells and limestone dissolve, releasing CO2 and increasing the gas pressure. The CO2 can be dissolved back into the water via

CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3 (<-> H(+) + HCO3(-))

While dissolving limestone and seashells neutralize the acid in the short term, this just means that more CO2 will be pulled in from the atmosphere and from the freshly produced CO2 to increase the acidity again. Luckily this isn't an infinite loop - half the CO2 gets stuck in HCO3- each time - so this would actually be a carbon sink from a purely chemical perspective. Ecologically, the dissolving of plankton would take away a carbon sink and so accelerate climate change.

As for the limnic eruption, while shellfish and plankton live in shallow enough water that them dissolving would probably be able to outgas into the atmosphere quickly enough that there is never a toxic concentration, limestone deposits can be found at great depths and can be over a kilometer thick. Just because the ocean can dissolve a 0.2mm plankton shell quickly enough for it to die doesn't mean it can eat through 2km of limestone at an appreciable rate. It seems possible that ocean acidification would increase fast enough that the limestone isn't yet all gone by the time it erodes fast enough to form a convective plume, sucking in fresh acidic ocean from the surrounding water while carbonated but less acidic water quickly rises to the ocean's surface, outgassing the carbon dioxide like a limnic eruption.

While on average the dissolution of limestone would be a carbon sink, a lot of the ocean floor is not limestone, and so these places would draw in CO2 while places that do have limestone deposits would vent CO2. I don't know if it would be fast enough to produce a toxic concentration of CO2. I also don't know if by the time oceanic limestone gets eaten away at this rate the earth would still be habitable by humans.

If that is the choice you make, I believe you that you feel like it is the best you can do right now. But if 'we' refers to people in general, then that is simply false. There are many people who gleefully make things worse and there are also many who fight with heart and soul for a better world. It is not a given that those who see clearly are depressed and too overwhelmed to act.

If you have any energy to spare, search out people irl who take climate change as seriously as you do. Communal mass action is both the most effective strategically and the most invigorating emotionally.

On that we agree.

I’m acting under the assumption that they would have died anyway. As they do. When they decompose naturally, they release their carbon.

Okay, glad to understand that the issue is that you didn't understand my first comment or any comment that came after it.

One last time: what I'm saying is that you bury the wood to prevent it from decomposing and releasing its carbon, as an alternative to burning it. And that as an alternate source of electricity you use something that doesn't produce as much emissions, like solar, wind, or nuclear. And if you think burying wood is bad for any reason, then setting it on fire is bad for the same reason.

insurance crisis That's like calling a pandemic a funeral home crisis.

The insurance rates are accurate. Florida is just becoming uninhabitable. (At least, for standard postcolonial architecture).

How about no? A saved life is just as valuable whether there are 70 million dead or 7 billion. And even if it's just delaying the sterilization of the earth by a month that gives billions of people and quintillions of animals a bit more time.

Work-life balance is important and improves productivity, so you should be spending time with your loved ones regardless of how productive labor is. But giving up is just a waste.

If we go extinct, we had better make the last decades of humanity worth living.

If we thread the needle as a species, bottlenecking down to millions or thousands until we can weather the storm, we had better make sure that the culture that makes it through is not the capitalists that built the hardest bunkers or the fascists who massacred enough people until the survivors made it through with no skill of their own or even the liberals who adopted post-hoc constitutional principles that leave them unprepared for the next catastrophe.

And if billions survive, then every person counts. And that means every tonne of CO2 or microplastics, every species, every micrometer of ocean rise, every acre of robust circular agriculture.

There is no scenario in which we just get to lie down and take it.

You're right that there is a definition of anarchism that nobody will meet, just like there's a definition of feminism or capitalism or communism that nobody will meet. Those definitions are therefore useless, but that doesn't mean anything goes.

There's a difference between self-styled 'anarchists' who name themselves after oppressive systems and consciously include oppressive tools in their proposals for change and self-styled 'anarchists' who name themselves after systems that can help empower anarchism and that try to include as little archism in their proposals for change as possible.

The anarchist movement isn't a static definition, it's a vector force pulling at present-day society. Ancaps don't pull along that vector. Non-vegan anarchocommunists do.

Amazon's Human Resources Department buys all the land around where you stand, kills you of you violate the NAP by trespassing, and then barters for your unending indentured servitude in exchange for food and water.

Anarcho-capitalism is like taking the worst parts of feudalism and chattel slavery, but with fewer human rights.

I don't see how you're not getting this.

Yes, when you burn the trees you get electricity, but you also release as much carbon dioxide per kWh into the atmosphere as if you were to burn coal instead.

The climate does not care about where your carbon emissions come from. All carbon emissions are getting us further away from the holocene climate.

Maybe you're acting under the assumption that the trees wouldn't have grown or that they wouldn't have been cut down to make place for new trees if they hadn't been planned to be burned. Maybe that is even true under our fucked up capitalist economy. But that is just capitalism being stupid. If it is worth it to cut down trees to capture carbon, then we should fund that without also requiring the trees to be burned so all that progress is undone.

And sure, once the fossil fuel industry lies dead and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are back below 280 ppm, then you can start burning biomass to keep the concentration stable. But that's a century from now. Before then, either bury the trees or don't cut them down in the first place.

If you prefer to eat the entire cherry tree, that's your perogative. Personally I prefer using more precise tools so I only take what I need to and do as little damage as possible, though rest assured the cherries are hand-picked. The noise must be on your end.

Do you mean Canada, which is increasingly on fire? Or do you mean Scandinavia, which will become a glacier once the atlantic current shuts down next decade? Or do you mean Siberia, which currently has a record high temperature of 38C and everything is turning into a molten swamp? Or do you mean Arkhangelsk where the ecosystem will collapse because everything expects permafrost?

Do you mean any coastal city, which will flood? Do you mean places supplied by the international trade network? Do you mean places that expect the sea to contain living creatures? Do you mean places that are dependent on crops that expect temperatures to swing less than 25C back and forth in a week? Do you mean places that are open to the sky and aren't prepared for hurricane winds?

And if there is a place you've found that can weather the storm - do you mean the places where 8 billion people will try to get to but that only have room for less than 200 million total?

But once you put the trees underground, they're not going to get out without human intervention either...

When you've cut down the trees, they've "left the system". What does it matter whether the carbon you add to the system from the outside comes from trees that left the system 6 months ago or ones that left the system 400 million years ago?