4 ms·

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 ar

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.

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.