Talk:Carbon sequestration

message: I've cut out the below content from carbon sink and wonder if any of it is useful for this article, or if it's already all here. It seems a bit outdated and poorly sourced anyway. Or should it rather be merged into carbon capture and storage as it's really all about storage?
=== Geological sequestration ===
The method of  geo-sequestration or geological storage involves injecting carbon dioxide directly into underground geological formations. Declining oil fields, saline aquifers, and unmineable coal seams have been suggested as storage sites.  Caverns and old mines that are commonly used to store natural gas are not considered, because of a lack of storage safety.
 has been injected into declining oil fields for more than 40 years, to increase oil recovery.  This option is attractive because the storage costs are offset by the sale of additional oil that is recovered. Typically, 10–15% additional recovery of the original oil in place is possible. Further benefits are the existing infrastructure and the geophysical and geological information about the oil field that is available from the oil exploration. Another benefit of injecting  into oil fields is that  is soluble in oil.  Dissolving  in oil lowers the viscosity of the oil and reduces its interfacial tension which increases the oils mobility. All oil fields have a geological barrier preventing upward migration of oil. As most oil and gas has been in place for millions to tens of millions of years, depleted oil and gas reservoirs can contain carbon dioxide for millennia. Identified possible problems are the many 'leak' opportunities provided by old oil wells, the need for high injection pressures and acidification which can damage the geological barrier. Other disadvantages of old oil fields are their limited geographic distribution and depths, which require high injection pressures for sequestration.  Below a depth of about 1000 m, carbon dioxide is injected as a supercritical fluid, a material with the density of a liquid, but the viscosity and diffusivity of a gas. Unmineable coal seams can be used to store , because  absorbs to the coal surface, ensuring safe long-term storage.  In the process it releases methane that was previously adsorbed to the coal surface and that may be recovered.  Again the sale of the methane can be used to offset the cost of the  storage. Release or burning of methane would of course at least partially offset the obtained sequestration result – except when the gas is allowed to escape into the atmosphere in significant quantities: methane has a 80-fold higher global warming potential than  (during the first twenty years).
Saline aquifers contain highly mineralized brines and have so far been considered of no benefit to humans except in a few cases where they have been used for the storage of chemical waste.  Their advantages include a large potential storage volume and relatively common occurrence reducing the distance over which  has to be transported. The major disadvantage of saline aquifers is that relatively little is known about them compared to oil fields. Another disadvantage of saline aquifers is that as the salinity of the water increases, less  can be dissolved into aqueous solution. To keep the cost of storage acceptable the geophysical exploration may be limited, resulting in larger uncertainty about the structure of a given aquifer. Unlike storage in oil fields or coal beds, no side product will offset the storage cost. Leakage of  back into the atmosphere may be a problem in saline-aquifer storage.  However, current research shows that several trapping mechanisms immobilize the  underground, reducing the risk of leakage.
EMsmile (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this useful for the geological sequestration section? 

message: The method of  geo-sequestration or geological storage involves injecting carbon dioxide directly into underground geological formations. Declining oil fields, saline aquifers, and unmineable coal seams have been suggested as storage sites.  Caverns and old mines that are commonly used to store natural gas are not considered, because of a lack of storage safety.
 has been injected into declining oil fields for more than 40 years, to increase oil recovery.  This option is attractive because the storage costs are offset by the sale of additional oil that is recovered. Typically, 10–15% additional recovery of the original oil in place is possible. Further benefits are the existing infrastructure and the geophysical and geological information about the oil field that is available from the oil exploration. Another benefit of injecting  into oil fields is that  is soluble in oil.  Dissolving  in oil lowers the viscosity of the oil and reduces its interfacial tension which increases the oils mobility. All oil fields have a geological barrier preventing upward migration of oil. As most oil and gas has been in place for millions to tens of millions of years, depleted oil and gas reservoirs can contain carbon dioxide for millennia. Identified possible problems are the many 'leak' opportunities provided by old oil wells, the need for high injection pressures and acidification which can damage the geological barrier. Other disadvantages of old oil fields are their limited geographic distribution and depths, which require high injection pressures for sequestration.  Below a depth of about 1000 m, carbon dioxide is injected as a supercritical fluid, a material with the density of a liquid, but the viscosity and diffusivity of a gas. Unmineable coal seams can be used to store , because  absorbs to the coal surface, ensuring safe long-term storage.  In the process it releases methane that was previously adsorbed to the coal surface and that may be recovered.  Again the sale of the methane can be used to offset the cost of the  storage. Release or burning of methane would of course at least partially offset the obtained sequestration result – except when the gas is allowed to escape into the atmosphere in significant quantities: methane has a 80-fold higher global warming potential than  (during the first twenty years).
Saline aquifers contain highly mineralized brines and have so far been considered of no benefit to humans except in a few cases where they have been used for the storage of chemical waste.  Their advantages include a large potential storage volume and relatively common occurrence reducing the distance over which  has to be transported. The major disadvantage of saline aquifers is that relatively little is known about them compared to oil fields. Another disadvantage of saline aquifers is that as the salinity of the water increases, less  can be dissolved into aqueous solution. To keep the cost of storage acceptable the geophysical exploration may be limited, resulting in larger uncertainty about the structure of a given aquifer. Unlike storage in oil fields or coal beds, no side product will offset the storage cost. Leakage of  back into the atmosphere may be a problem in saline-aquifer storage.  However, current research shows that several trapping mechanisms immobilize the  underground, reducing the risk of leakage.
EMsmile (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geological sequestration 

message: The first section is called "description" which is a strange section heading. Can we please split that up into one on Terminology (or "definition") and the other part might be about "Types" or "Components"? I feel we need a section on terminology as it's all a bit of a mess. Compare with the definitions section at climate change mitigation which I think is useful. Here in this article we have a hatnote and the hatnote text could be explained in a definitions section: "This article is about storing carbon for a long time so that it is not in the atmosphere. For removing carbon dioxide from point sources before it enters the atmosphere, see Carbon capture and storage. For removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, see Carbon dioxide removal." . Also it would be helpful to have a sentence to explain how carbon sequestration differs from the concept of carbon sink. 
Also, can we please have a better first sentence? Currently it's "Carbon sequestration is the process of storing carbon in a carbon pool". I find it very strange that it talks about carbon pool which then redirects to carbon cycle. EMsmile (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also compare with how carbon sequestration is framed in the main climate change article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Carbon_sequestration. It says there "Natural carbon sinks can be enhanced to sequester significantly larger amounts of CO2 beyond naturally occurring levels.". Interesting the adjective "natural", does that mean we also have artificial carbon sinks? I guess that's those wooden buildings maybe? EMsmile (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a go at it myself now. Please check if I am on the right track. If there are even more definitions of the term around, let's add them. So far I have added two. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add better info about terminology 

message: The first sentence currently says "Carbon sequestration is the process of storing carbon in a carbon pool" which is taken from the Glossary of the IPCC AR 6 WG I report. I am all for using IPCC reports but in this case I am finding this unsuitable for a first sentence of a Wikipedia article. Can we improve it? It is unclear what is meant. The word "carbon pool" redirects to carbon cycle in Wikipedia. But in the IPCC glossary, a carbon pool is explained as "Pool, carbon and nitrogen: A  reservoir  in the Earth system where elements, such as carbon and nitrogen, reside in various chemical forms for a period of time. See also Reservoir, Sequestration, Sequestration potential, Sink, Source and Uptake." - Overall, I am finding this entire article avery unclear. It overlaps a lot with the "storage" component of the article carbon capture and storage. The short description of the article says .  EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, interestingly, this article only exists in 10 other languages in Wikipedia (it does not exist in German and French). As the German Wikipedia is normally very advanced on all the climate change topics it does make me wonder. Maybe it overlaps too much with related topics, e.g. carbon sink. EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done a bit of work on the first sentence and on the terminology section now. Needs further eyes and brain power. EMsmile (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have a better first sentence? And more questions. 

message: I've removed this content as it was deviating from the main topic (emissions are the subject of the article greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Also it was unsourced; some of it unsourced since 2010. EMsmile (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content about reducing emissions 

message: Increasing yields and efficiency generally reduces emissions as well, since more food results from the same or less effort. Techniques include more accurate use of fertilizers, less soil disturbance, better irrigation, and crop strains bred for locally beneficial traits and increased yields.
Replacing more energy intensive farming operations can also reduce emissions. Reduced or no-till farming requires less machine use and burns correspondingly less fuel per acre. However, no-till usually increases use of weed-control chemicals and the residue now left on the soil surface is more likely to release its  to the atmosphere as it decays, reducing the net carbon reduction.
In practice, most farming operations that incorporate post-harvest crop residues, wastes and byproducts back into the soil provide a carbon storage benefit. This is particularly the case for practices such as field burning of stubble – rather than releasing almost all of the stored  to the atmosphere, tillage incorporates the biomass back into the soil. EMsmile (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing emissions 

message: I think this text block that I have just cut out of blue carbon fits better here. But as I am not 100%, I am copying it to the talk page first:
=== Sedimentation and blue carbon burial ===
Organic carbon is only sequestered from the oceanic system if it reaches the sea floor and gets covered by a layer of sediment. Reduced oxygen levels in buried environments mean that tiny bacteria who eat organic matter and respire CO2 cannot decompose the carbon, so it is removed from the system permanently. Organic matter that sinks but is not buried by a sufficiently deep layer of sediment is subject to re-suspension by changing ocean currents, bioturbation by organisms that live in the top layer of marine sediments, and decomposition by heterotrophic bacteria. If any of these processes occur, the organic carbon is released back into the system. Carbon sequestration takes place only if burial rates by sediment are greater than the long term rates of erosion, bioturbation, and decomposition.
==== Spatial variability in sedimentation ====
Sedimentation is the rate at which floating or suspended particulate matter sinks and accumulates on the ocean floor. The faster (more energetic) the current, the more sediment it can pick up. As sediment laden currents slow, the particles fall out of suspension and come to rest on the sea floor. In other words, fast currents can carry many heavy grains, while a slow current can pick up only tiny pieces. As one can imagine, different places in the ocean vary drastically when it comes to the amount of suspended sediment and rate of deposition.
===== Open ocean =====
The open ocean has very low sedimentation rates because most of the sediments that make it here are carried by the wind. Wind transport accounts for only a small fraction of the total sediment delivery to the oceans. Additionally, there is much less plant and animal life living in the open ocean that could be buried. Therefore, carbon burial rates are relatively slow in the open ocean.
===== Coastal margins =====
Coastal margins have high sedimentation rates due to sediment input by rivers, which account for the vast majority of sediment delivery to the ocean. In most cases, sediments are deposited near the river mouth or are transported in the alongshore direction due to wave forcing. In some places sediment falls into submarine canyons and is transported off-shelf, if the canyon is sufficiently large or the shelf is narrow. Coastal margins also contain diverse and plentiful marine species, especially in places that experience periodic upwelling. More marine life combined with higher sedimentation rates on coastal margins creates hotspots for carbon burial.Nittrouer, C. A. (2007). Continental margin sedimentation: From sediment transport to sequence stratigraphy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. for the International Association of Sedimentologists.
===== Submarine canyons =====
Marine canyons are magnets for sediment because as currents carry sediment on the shelf in the alongshore direction, the path of the current crosses canyons perpendicularly. When the same amount of water flow is suddenly in much deeper water it slows down and deposits sediment. Due to the extreme depositional environment, carbon burial rates in the Nazare Canyon near Portugal are 30 times greater than the adjacent continental slope. This canyon alone accounts for about 0.03% of global terrestrial organic carbon burial in marine sediments. This may not seem like much, but the Nazarre submarine canyon only makes up 0.0001% of the area of the worlds ocean floor. EMsmile (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To   I don't think the first paragraph dealing with "sedimentation and blue carbon burial" merits placement in the "carbon sequestration" article for several reasons. The first sentence is rather misleading. It reads "Organic carbon is only sequestered from the oceanic system if it reaches the sea floor and gets covered by a layer of sediment". This is confusing since sediment is composed of both organic and inorganic material. So the logic is flawed. One would need to specify "inorganic" sediment which rarely exists on its own. There is however a more fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Organic carbon is still subject to methanogenesis under anaerobic conditions and thus can escape as methane gas. So the statement about it being permanently sequestered is questionable unless we are talking about super depths with such high pressure that the methane hydrate would not escape back to the atmosphere. How significant blue carbon burial is for sequestration would need to be clearly stated and referenced before going ahead. So I think I would put the section back where it came from. The 4 paragraphs that follow deal mainly with the process of sedimentation in various marine areas and not carbon sequestration per se so I would put these back where they came as well. ASRASR (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then we just leave it where it is for now (parked on the talk page). I don't want to move it back to where it came from (blue carbon) because it doesn't fit there either. It goes into too much detail and its not well sourced. Also, I checked in the IPCC AR 6 WG I report and the term "blue carbon burial" is not mentioned there. Marine sediment is included but I didn't find content on the importance of any blue carbon burial so I assume it is not a significant sink at this stage. We could maybe look out to see if there are other publications that explain a bit more about sediment and the potential for burial in the deep ocean floor (if that is of relevance here).  EMsmile (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful content about sediment? 

message: Organic carbon is only sequestered from the oceanic system if it reaches the sea floor and gets covered by a layer of sediment. Reduced oxygen levels in buried environments mean that tiny bacteria who eat organic matter and respire CO2 cannot decompose the carbon, so it is removed from the system permanently. Organic matter that sinks but is not buried by a sufficiently deep layer of sediment is subject to re-suspension by changing ocean currents, bioturbation by organisms that live in the top layer of marine sediments, and decomposition by heterotrophic bacteria. If any of these processes occur, the organic carbon is released back into the system. Carbon sequestration takes place only if burial rates by sediment are greater than the long term rates of erosion, bioturbation, and decomposition.
==== Spatial variability in sedimentation ====
Sedimentation is the rate at which floating or suspended particulate matter sinks and accumulates on the ocean floor. The faster (more energetic) the current, the more sediment it can pick up. As sediment laden currents slow, the particles fall out of suspension and come to rest on the sea floor. In other words, fast currents can carry many heavy grains, while a slow current can pick up only tiny pieces. As one can imagine, different places in the ocean vary drastically when it comes to the amount of suspended sediment and rate of deposition.
===== Open ocean =====
The open ocean has very low sedimentation rates because most of the sediments that make it here are carried by the wind. Wind transport accounts for only a small fraction of the total sediment delivery to the oceans. Additionally, there is much less plant and animal life living in the open ocean that could be buried. Therefore, carbon burial rates are relatively slow in the open ocean.
===== Coastal margins =====
Coastal margins have high sedimentation rates due to sediment input by rivers, which account for the vast majority of sediment delivery to the ocean. In most cases, sediments are deposited near the river mouth or are transported in the alongshore direction due to wave forcing. In some places sediment falls into submarine canyons and is transported off-shelf, if the canyon is sufficiently large or the shelf is narrow. Coastal margins also contain diverse and plentiful marine species, especially in places that experience periodic upwelling. More marine life combined with higher sedimentation rates on coastal margins creates hotspots for carbon burial.Nittrouer, C. A. (2007). Continental margin sedimentation: From sediment transport to sequence stratigraphy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. for the International Association of Sedimentologists.
===== Submarine canyons =====
Marine canyons are magnets for sediment because as currents carry sediment on the shelf in the alongshore direction, the path of the current crosses canyons perpendicularly. When the same amount of water flow is suddenly in much deeper water it slows down and deposits sediment. Due to the extreme depositional environment, carbon burial rates in the Nazare Canyon near Portugal are 30 times greater than the adjacent continental slope. This canyon alone accounts for about 0.03% of global terrestrial organic carbon burial in marine sediments. This may not seem like much, but the Nazarre submarine canyon only makes up 0.0001% of the area of the worlds ocean floor. EMsmile (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To   I don't think the first paragraph dealing with "sedimentation and blue carbon burial" merits placement in the "carbon sequestration" article for several reasons. The first sentence is rather misleading. It reads "Organic carbon is only sequestered from the oceanic system if it reaches the sea floor and gets covered by a layer of sediment". This is confusing since sediment is composed of both organic and inorganic material. So the logic is flawed. One would need to specify "inorganic" sediment which rarely exists on its own. There is however a more fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Organic carbon is still subject to methanogenesis under anaerobic conditions and thus can escape as methane gas. So the statement about it being permanently sequestered is questionable unless we are talking about super depths with such high pressure that the methane hydrate would not escape back to the atmosphere. How significant blue carbon burial is for sequestration would need to be clearly stated and referenced before going ahead. So I think I would put the section back where it came from. The 4 paragraphs that follow deal mainly with the process of sedimentation in various marine areas and not carbon sequestration per se so I would put these back where they came as well. ASRASR (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then we just leave it where it is for now (parked on the talk page). I don't want to move it back to where it came from (blue carbon) because it doesn't fit there either. It goes into too much detail and its not well sourced. Also, I checked in the IPCC AR 6 WG I report and the term "blue carbon burial" is not mentioned there. Marine sediment is included but I didn't find content on the importance of any blue carbon burial so I assume it is not a significant sink at this stage. We could maybe look out to see if there are other publications that explain a bit more about sediment and the potential for burial in the deep ocean floor (if that is of relevance here).  EMsmile (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedimentation and blue carbon burial 

message: Sedimentation is the rate at which floating or suspended particulate matter sinks and accumulates on the ocean floor. The faster (more energetic) the current, the more sediment it can pick up. As sediment laden currents slow, the particles fall out of suspension and come to rest on the sea floor. In other words, fast currents can carry many heavy grains, while a slow current can pick up only tiny pieces. As one can imagine, different places in the ocean vary drastically when it comes to the amount of suspended sediment and rate of deposition.
===== Open ocean =====
The open ocean has very low sedimentation rates because most of the sediments that make it here are carried by the wind. Wind transport accounts for only a small fraction of the total sediment delivery to the oceans. Additionally, there is much less plant and animal life living in the open ocean that could be buried. Therefore, carbon burial rates are relatively slow in the open ocean.
===== Coastal margins =====
Coastal margins have high sedimentation rates due to sediment input by rivers, which account for the vast majority of sediment delivery to the ocean. In most cases, sediments are deposited near the river mouth or are transported in the alongshore direction due to wave forcing. In some places sediment falls into submarine canyons and is transported off-shelf, if the canyon is sufficiently large or the shelf is narrow. Coastal margins also contain diverse and plentiful marine species, especially in places that experience periodic upwelling. More marine life combined with higher sedimentation rates on coastal margins creates hotspots for carbon burial.Nittrouer, C. A. (2007). Continental margin sedimentation: From sediment transport to sequence stratigraphy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. for the International Association of Sedimentologists.
===== Submarine canyons =====
Marine canyons are magnets for sediment because as currents carry sediment on the shelf in the alongshore direction, the path of the current crosses canyons perpendicularly. When the same amount of water flow is suddenly in much deeper water it slows down and deposits sediment. Due to the extreme depositional environment, carbon burial rates in the Nazare Canyon near Portugal are 30 times greater than the adjacent continental slope. This canyon alone accounts for about 0.03% of global terrestrial organic carbon burial in marine sediments. This may not seem like much, but the Nazarre submarine canyon only makes up 0.0001% of the area of the worlds ocean floor. EMsmile (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To   I don't think the first paragraph dealing with "sedimentation and blue carbon burial" merits placement in the "carbon sequestration" article for several reasons. The first sentence is rather misleading. It reads "Organic carbon is only sequestered from the oceanic system if it reaches the sea floor and gets covered by a layer of sediment". This is confusing since sediment is composed of both organic and inorganic material. So the logic is flawed. One would need to specify "inorganic" sediment which rarely exists on its own. There is however a more fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Organic carbon is still subject to methanogenesis under anaerobic conditions and thus can escape as methane gas. So the statement about it being permanently sequestered is questionable unless we are talking about super depths with such high pressure that the methane hydrate would not escape back to the atmosphere. How significant blue carbon burial is for sequestration would need to be clearly stated and referenced before going ahead. So I think I would put the section back where it came from. The 4 paragraphs that follow deal mainly with the process of sedimentation in various marine areas and not carbon sequestration per se so I would put these back where they came as well. ASRASR (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then we just leave it where it is for now (parked on the talk page). I don't want to move it back to where it came from (blue carbon) because it doesn't fit there either. It goes into too much detail and its not well sourced. Also, I checked in the IPCC AR 6 WG I report and the term "blue carbon burial" is not mentioned there. Marine sediment is included but I didn't find content on the importance of any blue carbon burial so I assume it is not a significant sink at this stage. We could maybe look out to see if there are other publications that explain a bit more about sediment and the potential for burial in the deep ocean floor (if that is of relevance here).  EMsmile (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spatial variability in sedimentation 

message: Marine canyons are magnets for sediment because as currents carry sediment on the shelf in the alongshore direction, the path of the current crosses canyons perpendicularly. When the same amount of water flow is suddenly in much deeper water it slows down and deposits sediment. Due to the extreme depositional environment, carbon burial rates in the Nazare Canyon near Portugal are 30 times greater than the adjacent continental slope. This canyon alone accounts for about 0.03% of global terrestrial organic carbon burial in marine sediments. This may not seem like much, but the Nazarre submarine canyon only makes up 0.0001% of the area of the worlds ocean floor. EMsmile (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To   I don't think the first paragraph dealing with "sedimentation and blue carbon burial" merits placement in the "carbon sequestration" article for several reasons. The first sentence is rather misleading. It reads "Organic carbon is only sequestered from the oceanic system if it reaches the sea floor and gets covered by a layer of sediment". This is confusing since sediment is composed of both organic and inorganic material. So the logic is flawed. One would need to specify "inorganic" sediment which rarely exists on its own. There is however a more fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Organic carbon is still subject to methanogenesis under anaerobic conditions and thus can escape as methane gas. So the statement about it being permanently sequestered is questionable unless we are talking about super depths with such high pressure that the methane hydrate would not escape back to the atmosphere. How significant blue carbon burial is for sequestration would need to be clearly stated and referenced before going ahead. So I think I would put the section back where it came from. The 4 paragraphs that follow deal mainly with the process of sedimentation in various marine areas and not carbon sequestration per se so I would put these back where they came as well. ASRASR (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then we just leave it where it is for now (parked on the talk page). I don't want to move it back to where it came from (blue carbon) because it doesn't fit there either. It goes into too much detail and its not well sourced. Also, I checked in the IPCC AR 6 WG I report and the term "blue carbon burial" is not mentioned there. Marine sediment is included but I didn't find content on the importance of any blue carbon burial so I assume it is not a significant sink at this stage. We could maybe look out to see if there are other publications that explain a bit more about sediment and the potential for burial in the deep ocean floor (if that is of relevance here).  EMsmile (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submarine canyons 

message: I've removed this recently added text block as I felt it was too specific an example and didn't really fit into this kind of high level overview article. Please discuss if you think it really does belong here:
"In 1997-1998, approximately 12,000 tons of orange peels were dumped on degraded land in Costa Rica.  In 2013, researchers found the land had more tree biomass, more forest canopy, and richer soil than unfertilized land nearby.  Princeton University ecologist Timothy Treuer remarked "This is one of the only instances I've ever heard of where you can have cost-negative carbon sequestration."" EMsmile (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of orange peels removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  How to clean up the mess around trees and mitigation  

message: 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.”" EMsmile (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Have made an attempt Chidgk1 (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from IPCC AR6 report removed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should carbon capture and storage be mentioned in the lead?