Could be straight from the mind of that great scientist and philosopher Lee Anderson.
Trees die, fall into the ground and produce hydro-carbon fuels. Other trees grow.
Therefore coal, oil, and gas are renewable energies.
All we have to do is plant some trees, wait 100years for them to mature, then come back 300million years later to harvest the coal.
And you thought it was a long time to charge a Tesla??
Except of course that wouldn`t happen. when the first trees turned up their toes (roots?) there was no cellulose eating bacteria around.
Now there is.
In the future there will be no coal for any ancestors of 30p Lee to mine.
We won’t be here in 300 million years to care.
So you’re not actually worried about the CO2 you just want to leave it all in the ground now so it can be used 300 million years later instead.
Not much point when long before then the CO2 haters will have destroyed the photosynthesis process and turned our green and pleasant land into an irradiated, barren dust bowl covered in concrete, rail infrastructure and solar panels and leaking nuke waste from blown up power stations and waste dumps.Oh and obviously no Oxygen to breathe.
I think the CO2 still in the ground should stay there.
Increasing levels of CO2 doesn’t increase the growth of trees etc. If there is enough, then there is enough.
Putting two burgers on the table instead of one doesn`t mean we grow twice as tall and healthy!
Photosynthesis will not be “destroyed” by our concerted, but weak, efforts to get CO2 levels reduced to something close to pre-industrial levels. However I am aware from some of your previous posts that you have a unique and dynamic approach to science (ie making it up on the spot), so I don’t expect you to accept the rationality of what I say.
If you burn trees for fuel instead of fossil fuel you’ve obviously lost the photosynthesis capability of each tree you burn over its life span.
Bearing in mind photosynthesis is a net CO2 to Oxygen conversion.
The same applies to trashing vegetation under urbanisation and infrastructure and solar panels.
As for the idea that this planet has a CO2 problem at still way less than 0.01% even if we doubled it.When the planet has had hundreds of times greater levels in the past.
Or that there is no link between atmospheric CO2 increases and a corresponding increase in plant life taking advantage of that increase.
What can you expect from those who think that nuke and biomass energy is environmentally friendly.
Or truck drivers making the case for rail freight based on it.
As I said, you have a “unique and dynamic” approach to the “understanding” of science, which at it’s most fundamental level simply involves ignoring all the data analysed and accepted by trained professional scientists all over the globe.
Ironically it’s clear that the massively higher CO2 levels of the Cambrian didn’t cook the planet but did the provide the atmosphere needed for plant life to then arrive on the scene and get us to where we are now.Which is around the bare minimum needed for plant life to sustain photosynthesis.So what do the CO2 haters do.Lets burn the trees for fuel that’ll fix it.