5 ms·

So, to offset his carbon emissions, American must plant 150 trees a year, ensure that they grow for at least 10 years, and then ensure that the CO2 captured by

by xyzzyz 8y ago

So, to offset his carbon emissions, American must plant 150 trees a year, ensure that they grow for at least 10 years, and then ensure that the CO2 captured by them doesn’t get rereleased. This means that we need space for at least 3 trillion trees, which is three times the space available, based on the figure in your link. Ensuring that the CO2 doesn’t get rereleased means that all that lumber needs to be buried or sunk, since this is way more lumber than the humanity actually uses productively. Additionally, this would mean doing heavy industrial management of all this immense forest area to cut and bury all these hundreds of billions of trees a year. This would require digging huge pits, transporting lots of heavy material to them, at extra emissions. And that’s for American emission only, which are only a fraction of global emissions. And of course we ignore the question why would you want to bury all this wood while keeping digging out all the fossils, when you could be using the same wood to generate energy instead. So no, while this might work to pacify the conscience of an individual, it makes absolutely no sense to do it at scale.

ph0rque 8y ago
Actually, if the trees are burned or otherwise re-release their carbon, the subsequent re-planting will take care of re-re-capturing that carbon. If any of the trees die or are cut down, a new one can be planted in its place. If it still living and thriving, it should be naturally left alone. Also, for ten years, 327 million Americans each planting 1.5k trees comes out to half a trillion trees. The link in my blog says there is room for 1.2 trillion trees to be planted, so the math works out.
- timClicks 8y ago
  When the trees die, won't the carbon be re-introduced to the atmosphere over time via microbial decomposition of the wood? That is, once the microbes that eat the trees die, they'll be eaten by something that is eventually eaten by something on the surface, thus releasing the carbon sequestered by the tree.
  - ph0rque 8y ago
    Yes, that could happen. Replacing the dead tree with a seedling will re-capture that carbon and return to a net-zero atmospheric carbon balance. Also, there are many situations where a net-negative amount of carbon could be released into the atmosphere: the tree could be used as lumber to build something, thus not decomposing. Or it could be partially or fully buried, sequestering some or most of the carbon in the soil.
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      Using it as lumber will only extend the time period when the carbon is sequestered, but won’t sequester it permanently. You need to bury it for that, and bury it deep enough so that it doesn’t decompose. More importantly, the actual lumber consumption is trivial. America consumes half of a single tree per capita annually[1]. Even if you assume that this half of a single tree gets sequestered permanently (which is not realistic), that’s a far, far cry from 150 trees yearly. Really, this is all so silly: if you can grow so much biomass to offset all carbon emissions, why wouldn’t you burn that biomass instead of burning fossils and burying the biomass? It makes no sense, like most of the feel-good green plans. [1] - https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/50895 https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/50895
      - ph0rque 8y ago
        Why are you fixated on permanently sequestering the carbon? As soon as a tree dies, all you need to do is replace it by replanting the tree. It doesn't matter if the tree's carbon is immediately released in the atmosphere (by burning) or it happens after hundreds of years. The new tree will re-sequester the dead tree's carbon. Also, if a tree dies, it frees up space for another tree. So in effect, as long as you keep those 1.2T trees growing (and replace any dead ones promptly), you will keep that carbon sequestered. > Really, this is all so silly... It makes no sense, like most of the feel-good green plans. At this point, it seems like you're just dismissing the idea. Feel free to do so, but you haven't provided any reason why it won't work.
        8y ago
- akimball 8y ago
  There are twenty times that many people on Earth. You would have to compactify the wood for building materials, or something similar, to properly sequester. I suggest iron seeding the equatorial pacific as cheaper and more scalable.
  - ph0rque 8y ago
    Americans produce a disproportionate amount of CO2 due to their lifestyle. So you don't need to plant twenty times that amount of trees to sequester manmade CO2; only 2.4x. Also, as long as you replace any trees that die with seedlings, you don't need to worry about what happens to the dead wood. This method comes out to a cost of $6.70/ton sequestered. Other methods can cost many multiples of this amount. Do you have any estimates for iron seeding of the equatorial Pacific?
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      US emits only 15% of global carbon dioxide. If you plant 2.4x trees, you’ll only offset 40% of global emissions. For 2.4x to cover global emissions, global emissions would have to shrink by 60%. If US emissions were reduced by that much, it would put US emissions per capita below present day Belarus and Bulgaria. > Also, as long as you replace any trees that die with seedlings, you don't need to worry about what happens to the dead wood. You do, though. If the wood decomposes, all the CO2 is released back to atmosphere, which puts you back at square one.

by xyzzyz 8y ago

ph0rque 8y ago

Actually, if the trees are burned or otherwise re-release their carbon, the subsequent re-planting will take care of re-re-capturing that carbon. If any of the trees die or are cut down, a new one can be planted in its place. If it still living and thriving, it should be naturally left alone. Also, for ten years, 327 million Americans each planting 1.5k trees comes out to half a trillion trees. The link in my blog says there is room for 1.2 trillion trees to be planted, so the math works out.

timClicks 8y ago
When the trees die, won't the carbon be re-introduced to the atmosphere over time via microbial decomposition of the wood? That is, once the microbes that eat the trees die, they'll be eaten by something that is eventually eaten by something on the surface, thus releasing the carbon sequestered by the tree.
- ph0rque 8y ago
  Yes, that could happen. Replacing the dead tree with a seedling will re-capture that carbon and return to a net-zero atmospheric carbon balance. Also, there are many situations where a net-negative amount of carbon could be released into the atmosphere: the tree could be used as lumber to build something, thus not decomposing. Or it could be partially or fully buried, sequestering some or most of the carbon in the soil.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    Using it as lumber will only extend the time period when the carbon is sequestered, but won’t sequester it permanently. You need to bury it for that, and bury it deep enough so that it doesn’t decompose. More importantly, the actual lumber consumption is trivial. America consumes half of a single tree per capita annually[1]. Even if you assume that this half of a single tree gets sequestered permanently (which is not realistic), that’s a far, far cry from 150 trees yearly. Really, this is all so silly: if you can grow so much biomass to offset all carbon emissions, why wouldn’t you burn that biomass instead of burning fossils and burying the biomass? It makes no sense, like most of the feel-good green plans. [1] - https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/50895 https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/50895
    - ph0rque 8y ago
      Why are you fixated on permanently sequestering the carbon? As soon as a tree dies, all you need to do is replace it by replanting the tree. It doesn't matter if the tree's carbon is immediately released in the atmosphere (by burning) or it happens after hundreds of years. The new tree will re-sequester the dead tree's carbon. Also, if a tree dies, it frees up space for another tree. So in effect, as long as you keep those 1.2T trees growing (and replace any dead ones promptly), you will keep that carbon sequestered. > Really, this is all so silly... It makes no sense, like most of the feel-good green plans. At this point, it seems like you're just dismissing the idea. Feel free to do so, but you haven't provided any reason why it won't work.
      - 8y ago
akimball 8y ago
There are twenty times that many people on Earth. You would have to compactify the wood for building materials, or something similar, to properly sequester. I suggest iron seeding the equatorial pacific as cheaper and more scalable.
- ph0rque 8y ago
  Americans produce a disproportionate amount of CO2 due to their lifestyle. So you don't need to plant twenty times that amount of trees to sequester manmade CO2; only 2.4x. Also, as long as you replace any trees that die with seedlings, you don't need to worry about what happens to the dead wood. This method comes out to a cost of $6.70/ton sequestered. Other methods can cost many multiples of this amount. Do you have any estimates for iron seeding of the equatorial Pacific?
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    US emits only 15% of global carbon dioxide. If you plant 2.4x trees, you’ll only offset 40% of global emissions. For 2.4x to cover global emissions, global emissions would have to shrink by 60%. If US emissions were reduced by that much, it would put US emissions per capita below present day Belarus and Bulgaria. > Also, as long as you replace any trees that die with seedlings, you don't need to worry about what happens to the dead wood. You do, though. If the wood decomposes, all the CO2 is released back to atmosphere, which puts you back at square one.