5 ms·

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

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.
      - dragonwriter 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. This is true on average in otherwise equivalent conditions, sure.
      - xyzzyz 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. Because a solution that can only possibly delay the climate change by a decade or two with extreme change to global ecosystems by immense program of forestation is no solution at all. Seriously, what’s the point of doing this, if it require extreme global efforts, and will only make marginal difference? It is much more cost efficient to simply replace emissions with (also rather inefficient) solar and wind, not to mention nuclear power, instead of offsetting them by planting trees, which has no chance of having any effect other than delaying the climate change by a few decades theoretically, and a few years in practice. The question rather is, why are you so hung up on the idea of planting trees, if it’s not going to make any difference? > 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. Indeed, these 1.2T live trees will sequester the carbon. I do not question that. What I question is the point of doing that if you keep emitting carbon: this will only delay the climate change by a few years, because after you use up all available space and grow these 1.2T trees to maturity, you won’t be able to capture any extra carbon: all carbon captured by the trees will be offset by the carbon emitted by decaying dead trees (or huge forest fires, which are inevitable if you don’t remove fuel from these huge foerests), unless of course you bury them. > Feel free to do so, but you haven't provided any reason why it won't work. No, I did, you’re just ignoring it. Again, to recapitulate: planting trees will not offset carbon dioxide emissions unless you take on extreme effort to bury these immense amounts of lumber (which would also be stupid if you keep removing more fossils from the ground and burning them). Planting trees will only delay these emissions, by the length of time that is relatively trivial compared to extreme effort necessary, and insane amounts of ecosystems destroyed. Planting 1.2T trees would destroy so many ecosystems that it would be more ecological to simply do nothing. Planting trees to offset carbon dioxide emissions from fossils is like putting a yoghurt cup under leaking drain pipe. It will work for a while, until the cup overflows, at which point you’re back to square one. You can then replace cup and pour out water in some other drain (that is, bury the lumber), but that’s stupid, because the whole point of a drain is to pour waste water into it, and if it is leaking, you should fix the leak instead of using some silly cup-to-other-drain scheme. Similarly, planting trees will only delay the inevitable, and when the cup overflows, that is, the tree dies, you need to figure out some other way to sequester the dead tree.
- dragonsky67 8y ago
  How about we turn them into houses or furniture. Timber used in construction can last for a very long time, all the while keeping it's carbon locked up. Even when it finally decomposes through rot or consumption a lot of the carbon is kept out of the atmosphere, ending up in the food chain fed by the organisms that consume it. Plant a tree now, in 200 years it may be part of your great great great grandchildren.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    Even when it finally decomposes through rot or consumption a lot of the carbon is kept out of the atmosphere, ending up in the food chain fed by the organisms that consume it. No, not a lot. In fact, it’s practically nothing, compared to the mass of trees. Think about it: are you using the mass of 150 adult trees annually for buildings? Are you sequestering much of it in your body? Not even close. Today America consumes less than a half of a single adult tree per capita per year. The carbon is only sequestered when the trees are alive or when they are buried or sunk. If you don’t bury and only have space for a decade of tree planting, you are at best going to delay the climate change by a decade, which is not nothing, but won’t change much. And, of course, we ignore things like albedo changes due to more forestation which could offset a big part of gain.
- jfoucher 8y ago
  Not if a new starts growing in place of the old one. The carbon is sequestered in the mass of the living trees so that is what counts
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.

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.
    - dragonwriter 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. This is true on average in otherwise equivalent conditions, sure.
    - xyzzyz 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. Because a solution that can only possibly delay the climate change by a decade or two with extreme change to global ecosystems by immense program of forestation is no solution at all. Seriously, what’s the point of doing this, if it require extreme global efforts, and will only make marginal difference? It is much more cost efficient to simply replace emissions with (also rather inefficient) solar and wind, not to mention nuclear power, instead of offsetting them by planting trees, which has no chance of having any effect other than delaying the climate change by a few decades theoretically, and a few years in practice. The question rather is, why are you so hung up on the idea of planting trees, if it’s not going to make any difference? > 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. Indeed, these 1.2T live trees will sequester the carbon. I do not question that. What I question is the point of doing that if you keep emitting carbon: this will only delay the climate change by a few years, because after you use up all available space and grow these 1.2T trees to maturity, you won’t be able to capture any extra carbon: all carbon captured by the trees will be offset by the carbon emitted by decaying dead trees (or huge forest fires, which are inevitable if you don’t remove fuel from these huge foerests), unless of course you bury them. > Feel free to do so, but you haven't provided any reason why it won't work. No, I did, you’re just ignoring it. Again, to recapitulate: planting trees will not offset carbon dioxide emissions unless you take on extreme effort to bury these immense amounts of lumber (which would also be stupid if you keep removing more fossils from the ground and burning them). Planting trees will only delay these emissions, by the length of time that is relatively trivial compared to extreme effort necessary, and insane amounts of ecosystems destroyed. Planting 1.2T trees would destroy so many ecosystems that it would be more ecological to simply do nothing. Planting trees to offset carbon dioxide emissions from fossils is like putting a yoghurt cup under leaking drain pipe. It will work for a while, until the cup overflows, at which point you’re back to square one. You can then replace cup and pour out water in some other drain (that is, bury the lumber), but that’s stupid, because the whole point of a drain is to pour waste water into it, and if it is leaking, you should fix the leak instead of using some silly cup-to-other-drain scheme. Similarly, planting trees will only delay the inevitable, and when the cup overflows, that is, the tree dies, you need to figure out some other way to sequester the dead tree.
dragonsky67 8y ago
How about we turn them into houses or furniture. Timber used in construction can last for a very long time, all the while keeping it's carbon locked up. Even when it finally decomposes through rot or consumption a lot of the carbon is kept out of the atmosphere, ending up in the food chain fed by the organisms that consume it. Plant a tree now, in 200 years it may be part of your great great great grandchildren.
- xyzzyz 8y ago
  Even when it finally decomposes through rot or consumption a lot of the carbon is kept out of the atmosphere, ending up in the food chain fed by the organisms that consume it. No, not a lot. In fact, it’s practically nothing, compared to the mass of trees. Think about it: are you using the mass of 150 adult trees annually for buildings? Are you sequestering much of it in your body? Not even close. Today America consumes less than a half of a single adult tree per capita per year. The carbon is only sequestered when the trees are alive or when they are buried or sunk. If you don’t bury and only have space for a decade of tree planting, you are at best going to delay the climate change by a decade, which is not nothing, but won’t change much. And, of course, we ignore things like albedo changes due to more forestation which could offset a big part of gain.
jfoucher 8y ago
Not if a new starts growing in place of the old one. The carbon is sequestered in the mass of the living trees so that is what counts

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.