3 ms·

Trees ultimately burn or rot, releasing a large portion of that carbon back into the atmosphere. Cutting them down and burying them to grow more would be ideal,

Trees ultimately burn or rot, releasing a large portion of that carbon back into the atmosphere. Cutting them down and burying them to grow more would be ideal, but takes additional work. Someone want to engineer a tree with enormous, deep roots? Basically make the trees self-burying.

ceejayoz 8y ago
> Trees ultimately burn or rot Not all at once, though, and new trees spring up pretty quick. If you're replacing unforested land with forested land, you're still storing substantial carbon. Cutting down / burning an existing forest to plant trees doesn't work, sure.
soperj 8y ago
We're essentially doing just that when we use the wood for housing and other products and then eventually landfill, then you can plant more trees on that land.
hinkley 8y ago
Too narrow a view. The tree already buries almost half of its biomass in the ground for you. And a lot of material goes through the food chain when the tree rots in situ. There's a big difference between regrown forest and converting prairie to forest and a lot of that has to do with quantity and quality of decaying matter on the forest floor. Dead trees are better than no trees.
noselasd 8y ago
It's a buffer as long as there is a forest. Once you establish a forest where there previously was none, you have tied up a certain amount of carbon in all those tree trunk/root/branches. Sure, the individual trees will eventually die and release a lot, though far from all, carbon back again. But by then, new trees will grow and act as the storage buffer.
hannasanarion 8y ago
Not if they're treated with preservatives and built into houses. Every wood-frame house and piece of wooden furniture is carbon sequestration.
- bskinny129 8y ago
  As long as those houses don't burn down...
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    What percentage of houses burn down out of all houses ever built? I think not that many. Most probably stand for a hundred years and then are torn down and their component parts recycled.
yazaddaruvala 8y ago
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_why_we_should_build_wooden_skyscrapers https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_why_we_should_build_... This video makes me pretty proud to have graduated from UBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHtdnY_gnmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHtdnY_gnmE An extra reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DPp2NcnTb0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DPp2NcnTb0
- Tempest1981 8y ago
  Wood buildings using Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT), which doesn’t significantly burn. Cool!
richardw 8y ago
Make more stuff from wood. Replace lots of throwaway plastic goods with wood that lasts. Slow the rate at which it rots. Engineer landfills to retain the carbon.

ceejayoz 8y ago

> Trees ultimately burn or rot Not all at once, though, and new trees spring up pretty quick. If you're replacing unforested land with forested land, you're still storing substantial carbon. Cutting down / burning an existing forest to plant trees doesn't work, sure.

soperj 8y ago

We're essentially doing just that when we use the wood for housing and other products and then eventually landfill, then you can plant more trees on that land.

hinkley 8y ago

Too narrow a view. The tree already buries almost half of its biomass in the ground for you. And a lot of material goes through the food chain when the tree rots in situ. There's a big difference between regrown forest and converting prairie to forest and a lot of that has to do with quantity and quality of decaying matter on the forest floor. Dead trees are better than no trees.

noselasd 8y ago

It's a buffer as long as there is a forest. Once you establish a forest where there previously was none, you have tied up a certain amount of carbon in all those tree trunk/root/branches. Sure, the individual trees will eventually die and release a lot, though far from all, carbon back again. But by then, new trees will grow and act as the storage buffer.

hannasanarion 8y ago

Not if they're treated with preservatives and built into houses. Every wood-frame house and piece of wooden furniture is carbon sequestration.

bskinny129 8y ago
As long as those houses don't burn down...
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  What percentage of houses burn down out of all houses ever built? I think not that many. Most probably stand for a hundred years and then are torn down and their component parts recycled.

yazaddaruvala 8y ago

https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_why_we_should_build_wooden_skyscrapers https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_why_we_should_build_... This video makes me pretty proud to have graduated from UBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHtdnY_gnmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHtdnY_gnmE An extra reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DPp2NcnTb0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DPp2NcnTb0

Tempest1981 8y ago
Wood buildings using Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT), which doesn’t significantly burn. Cool!

richardw 8y ago

Make more stuff from wood. Replace lots of throwaway plastic goods with wood that lasts. Slow the rate at which it rots. Engineer landfills to retain the carbon.