"But let's push this concept further. If everything we build in this fashion is a carbon sink, why stop at houses? How about medical clinics, town canteens, municipal saunas, and community workshops made of cob and straw? Why not build cathedral-like libraries from bamboo and grass? How about enormous woven willow sculptures as monuments to celebrate the global carbon sequestration effort?"
Love this, we should add union halls to the mix, too!
As usual, an inspirational and very concise piece! I was wondering, you often mention using materials like bamboo, wood or straw to build carbon-negative housing. How do you envision this being done in a sustainable but large scale way that has high output but retains soil health, biodiversity, etc? How would you organize and plan agroforestry to account for these necessary materials?
Thank you so much for the kind words! This is a great question, and one that really deserves its own post. But to answer briefly: by mimicking nature. So, polycultures instead of monocultures; nitrogen-fixers rather than nitrogen fertilizer; and working with wildlife rather than against it. Any form of agriculture that seeks to make most of its inputs onsite has to take this approach. And in doing so—if it’s planned and executed well, with careful consideration for local conditions—it can achieve what you describe: regeneration of the ecosystem & high yields.
Organization & planning would necessarily have to be localized to a large extent, even as goals and accountability would have to be global. The conditions for success are too site specific for any plug-and-play approach, so local expertise would be essential. At the same time, the skills to execute it are not widespread, so training would be key. Fortunately, we have the infrastructure for that already in the form of the agricultural extension system, but it would have to be scaled up and reoriented towards agroforestry & regenerative practices.
I am still figuring out Substack comments, 😞 so the link to bamboo buildings above should be with this comment.
Anyway this is one of the best (non technical) articles on reforestation I've seen recently. Forests will provide food and housing as well as bringing needed rainfall into the center of the continents via the "biotic pump" effect.
And can replace ethanol crops in the bargain. And they grow on their own as long as we keep our damn machines from destroying them.
This isn't the kind of knowledge that our political or corporate elites want people to know. Thank you for posting this.
Great job! We'd love to report on our Track #6 educational channel on Green Energy, Homesteading and Permaculture. Let me know is this is technically possible. Or, we can feature on our Sherpa Network as a video webmaster. Phil Wilson RoadsteadFarms (at) gmail (dot) com. Best Regards, Phil
“But even if we stopped burning fossil fuels this very minute, we would not want to stay at today’s 425.48 ppm of atmospheric CO2 because it’s not as favorable for human life as the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm.”
Why is 280 more favorable than 425.48? Do we have any idea what the optimal level is?
"But let's push this concept further. If everything we build in this fashion is a carbon sink, why stop at houses? How about medical clinics, town canteens, municipal saunas, and community workshops made of cob and straw? Why not build cathedral-like libraries from bamboo and grass? How about enormous woven willow sculptures as monuments to celebrate the global carbon sequestration effort?"
Love this, we should add union halls to the mix, too!
Agreed!
As usual, an inspirational and very concise piece! I was wondering, you often mention using materials like bamboo, wood or straw to build carbon-negative housing. How do you envision this being done in a sustainable but large scale way that has high output but retains soil health, biodiversity, etc? How would you organize and plan agroforestry to account for these necessary materials?
Thank you so much for the kind words! This is a great question, and one that really deserves its own post. But to answer briefly: by mimicking nature. So, polycultures instead of monocultures; nitrogen-fixers rather than nitrogen fertilizer; and working with wildlife rather than against it. Any form of agriculture that seeks to make most of its inputs onsite has to take this approach. And in doing so—if it’s planned and executed well, with careful consideration for local conditions—it can achieve what you describe: regeneration of the ecosystem & high yields.
Organization & planning would necessarily have to be localized to a large extent, even as goals and accountability would have to be global. The conditions for success are too site specific for any plug-and-play approach, so local expertise would be essential. At the same time, the skills to execute it are not widespread, so training would be key. Fortunately, we have the infrastructure for that already in the form of the agricultural extension system, but it would have to be scaled up and reoriented towards agroforestry & regenerative practices.
This is so inspiring! It's giving me ideas for world-building too...
I am still figuring out Substack comments, 😞 so the link to bamboo buildings above should be with this comment.
Anyway this is one of the best (non technical) articles on reforestation I've seen recently. Forests will provide food and housing as well as bringing needed rainfall into the center of the continents via the "biotic pump" effect.
And can replace ethanol crops in the bargain. And they grow on their own as long as we keep our damn machines from destroying them.
This isn't the kind of knowledge that our political or corporate elites want people to know. Thank you for posting this.
Thank you so much for the kind words! Really glad you enjoyed it!
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/the-most-beautiful-bamboo-buildings-in-the-world
Sports Complexs, Churches, Medical Centers, etc.
Love it.
Like, a lot
Or, we can feature you, in a video webcast.
not report... restack.
Great job! We'd love to report on our Track #6 educational channel on Green Energy, Homesteading and Permaculture. Let me know is this is technically possible. Or, we can feature on our Sherpa Network as a video webmaster. Phil Wilson RoadsteadFarms (at) gmail (dot) com. Best Regards, Phil
Permaculture
“But even if we stopped burning fossil fuels this very minute, we would not want to stay at today’s 425.48 ppm of atmospheric CO2 because it’s not as favorable for human life as the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm.”
Why is 280 more favorable than 425.48? Do we have any idea what the optimal level is?