Talk:Carbon sequestration

I'm concerned that the lead section of this article is heavily weighted towards human intervention, and particularly on deep geologic storage of carbon dioxide. The lead says nothing about the carbon-sequestering value of leaving old growth forests, peatlands, and native grasslands alone. Deep geologic storage of carbon dioxide, which is an expensive and thus-far little-used technology, is mentioned three times:

1. "within carbon capture and storage projects"
2. "Artificial processes have been devised to produce similar effects, including large-scale, artificial capture and sequestration of industrially produced CO2 using subsurface saline aquifers or aging oil fields. Other technologies that work with carbon sequestration include bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, enhanced weathering, direct air carbon capture and sequestration (DACCS)."
3. "Carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere can also be stored in the Earth's crust by injecting it into the subsurface"

By rough estimates, anthropogenic carbon removal sequesters 2 gigatons of CO2 per year, including a tiny amount of deep geologic sequestration. Non-anthropogenic processes sequester around 10 times as much. I will add a POV tag to the article as I think this bias in the lead is severe. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Where do we stand with this now? I noticed that User:Jack4576 removed the tag that Clayoquot had added, in this edit with this edit summary: "there are presently no active NPOV or neutrality discussions on the talk page". Does that mean the issue with the lead has been resolved? EMsmile (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I see some of the repetition around DAC has been removed, which is good. However, I don't think the issues with the lead have been resolved. My comment above saying there is nothing about the carbon-sequestering value of leaving old growth forests, peatlands, and native grasslands alone. has not been addressed. The following has also been removed, which makes the lead even less informative about the significance of vegetation:

Forests, kelp beds, and other forms of plant life absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass. However, these biological stores are considered volatile carbon sinks as the long-term sequestration cannot be guaranteed. For example, natural events, such as wildfires or disease, economic pressures and changing political priorities can result in the sequestered carbon being released back into the atmosphere.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I had moved that paragraph today from the lead to the main text as I felt it wasn't a suitable summary. The content about a carbon sink being "volatile" or not was not described in the main text yet. In the lead, this information about it being a volatile carbon sink was confusing to me. It sounded like volatile means not really a carbon sequestration, at least not a long-term one. Do we understand carbon sequestration as storage regardless if long or short-term? Perhaps we could clarify this with a sentence or two in the definition section and then summarise it in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I also plan to move big chunks of this article from the "geologic sequestration" section to the carbon capture and storage article as I think it fits better there. Unless there are objections. EMsmile (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration can be either short or long term. Instead of "volatile" you can just say "impermanent". The points in the section that you removed are important for the lead. "Forests, kelp beds, and other forms of plant life absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass" is the most important sentence in the article. One of the most important sentences in the encyclopedia, I would venture to say. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to put it back in. Would be good if you could also explain there the issue of permanent versus impermanent. When C sequestration is done as part of CCS then it's meant to be permanent. When C sequestration is done as part of normal photosynthesis then it's not permanent, right? Maybe the issue is that the term "carbon sequestration" is used with different connotations in the biology context (natural carbon cycle) versus the climate change mitigation context (locking away carbon). But I am just guessing.

I don't follow you though when you say "One of the most important sentences in the encyclopedia, I would venture to say". How so? Isn't it just a sentence that describes the basics of photosynthesis? "plant life absorbs carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass". How is this so special?

What about my other suggestions about moving stuff out and trimming the article down (and the edits that I did yesterday). I see it as a high level article that should not go into too much detail for all the different processes, natural or engineered ones. - Pinging User:InformationToKnowledge as I always find it interesting when they critique an article. EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I put it back in. I don't have the energy for further discussion on this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change#How to clean up the mess around trees and mitigation? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As you can see I have moved the forestry info (except albedo) from carbon sink to here and then excerpted all the forestry info here back there. I am now trying to condense the forestry info which is here. Help and suggestions welcome. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also ideas welcome at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albedo#What_should_we_add_from_this_article? as that is excerpted Chidgk1 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Following me moving some text from carbon sink to here there is now some deforestation info here. Should all the info about deforestation affect on sequestration be in Deforestation and climate change rather than here? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you and have done a bit of work to condense the "forestry" section (this needs further work; I am struggling to establish a logical flow here). But I wouldn't move content to Deforestation and climate change, rather to deforestation or reforestation. See also my concern about that article (Deforestation and climate change) on its talk page. EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this quote from the IPCC AR6 report as I felt it was too cryptic for our average readers and also digressing into other areas. Could we rather take just the essence of it and say it in our own words? "IPCC AR6 concluded that “Where carefully and appropriately implemented, AFOLU mitigation measures are uniquely positioned to deliver substantial co-benefits and help address many of the wider challenges associated with land management. If AFOLU measures are deployed badly then, when taken together with the increasing need to produce sufficient food, feed, fuel and wood, they may exacerbate trade-offs with the conservation of habitats, adaptation, biodiversity and other services.”^[1]" EMsmile (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I have not got time at the moment but you are right AFOLU is jargon and food mention is confusing and it needs rewriting - feel free to ping me if I have not done it in a week or two. Chidgk1 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Have made an attempt Chidgk1 (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the hatnote mention is enough as otherwise the reader might be confused.

Also should Carbon dioxide removal be mentioned in the lead and if so how? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)