If what we want is carbon sequestration then yes it is because hemp does that very well and incidentally also furnishes a plethora of biomass to be used in various ways.
And whoever thinks hemp is hard to work with must be pretty fussy because that’s what sailors have been making sails out of for centuries and seem to be able to manage that pretty well. I’ve worked with pure hemp fabric as well as various blends and have had zero problem with it–it has a similar hand to cotton at heavier weights but with stronger fiber and it wears a lot better and longer. I’ve never had a hemp garment wear through at the knees or get weak along a seam like cotton does.
And there was no cotton gin for cotton until someone decided to make one and before the cotton gin cotton was a pretty bitchy plant to harvest and process too. Thing is, the rest of the world is growing hemp for industrial uses and doing just fine with it and we can too. Better hemp than endless acres of Roundup soaked corn any old day. No wonder half this country has leaky gut and autoimmune disorders.
Sailors really had no choice, but that didn’t make it easy. A sailmaker’s palm was invented to just deal with several of the work issues.
And I would call a guy who pushes a needle through two 1/4" layers of leather on a regular basis ‘fussy’, nor would I call a profession historical sewer who has dealt with multiple varieties of fabric ‘fussy’.
That would be correct. But even in our modern age there really isn’t a solution, and I doubt a solution would be affordable for farmers to use for a small fringe crop. Right now they have to harvest with combines that get jammed & dulled by hemp.
The rest of the world has had industrial hemp for ages, yet it really hasn’t gone beyond being a specialty crop. Why is that? Hmmm.
I don’t know if this pdf of a study from 2005 still holds but it appears that organic cotton is the best for CO2 but all types of plant materials are way better than polyester. I wonder if we could implement a tax on polyester material to encourage plant-based materials of any type. This in itself would sequester the carbon in the medium term, and we are in enough of a crisis that we need medium as well as long-term sequestration.
Does the Sierra Club show up and stop or slow coal power plants in China and India? Because those two countries are increasing their number of coal power plants, at the same time the US and Europe is switching to cleaner fuels. FWIW, China burns far more coal than the US, and India will probably surpass the US not too far in the future.
So, I’m not really disputing what you wrote, as you do specifically mention the US and Europe cutting back on coal power. But when you look at the entire world, with many countries apparently not worrying too much about pollution or carbon, that’s kind of like praising fuel economy gains in cars, while trucks make up more and more vehicle sales.
From what I’ve gathered, China has now stopped approving new coal power plants. There may be some still in the works that have approval, I don’t know. However, to counterbalance this, the Belt and Road Initiative is a Chinese foreign aid program that encourages other countries to, among other things, put up coal power plants. So China’s a mixed bag at best.
Don’t know that much about India, except that some states are at least trying to increase the amount of renewables in their energy mix, but it’s not completely successful.
“It’s important to understand that the dose makes the poison of any chemical and that herbicides affect enzymes found in plants, not mammals or insects. And by no means are the crops “drenched,” as some activists like to phrase it. Wheat would be sprayed with glyphosate at a rate of around 12 ounces per acre, equivalent to about a soda can’s worth on an area of land the size of a football field!”
As previously pointed out, hemp growing is not immune from needing pesticide applications.
And it doesn’t help your cause to promote quackery about “leaky gut” and false information about the etiology and frequency of autoimmune diseases.
Getting back to the original issue, a bit of advice for the OP. When you come across a site named nextbigfuture dot com, and chunks of the story read like they were written by Google Translate…
… it’s probably not the most credible source of information available.
Dude, you sound like those boomer ladies who sell essential oils. Like, BigPharma doesn’t want me selling my lemongrass essence because it competes with their antidepressants!
I don’t understand people who can’t just have fun getting stupid stoned without insisting that we also wear it and eat it and fix climate change with it. It’s just drugs. Drugs are fun. That’s what they’re made for.
That’s a great article however I am not sure if it captures coal plants producing chemicals. I think that article only takes into coal burning plants producing power.
Coal is used worldwide but predominantly in China to make chemicals (Methanol, Ammonka, etc) which are subsequently used to make many products we use.
No the article was focused on coal burning power plants because those emit lots of CO[sub]2[/sub]. I could be wrong, but don’t expect chemical plants to emit that much carbon dioxide, although they probably do emit other greenhouse gases in lesser amounts.
“The estimate shows that the total CO2 emission of the coal chemical industry in 2015 was 607 million tonnes (Mt), accounting for approximately 5.71% of China’s total CO2 emission. The figure is higher than the total annual CO2 emission of a country such as Canada (555 Mt) or Brazil (486 Mt).”
Sorry, I meant that any single chemical plant doesn’t produce much carbon dioxide compared to a single power plant. I expect there’s lots more chemical plants than power plants. So the industry has obviously been flying under the radar as far as emissions go.
