3 ms·

I don't see how 1.5 billion trees is enough to offset the UK's carbon emission rate. If you go by a tree sequestering a ton of carbon over a 40 year lifetime, a

I don't see how 1.5 billion trees is enough to offset the UK's carbon emission rate. If you go by a tree sequestering a ton of carbon over a 40 year lifetime, and the UK emitting 368 megatons per year... you're sequestering on average 37.5 million tons per year (less when they're young, more when they're old), which is only one tenth of what the UK emits in one year. Plant 15 billion trees and then you're carbon neutral, on average, for the 40 years, and carbon negative if they live longer. But isn't that like planting trees on half of the land of the UK?

quixoticelixer- 7y ago
Planting trees can only ever be part of the solution, but it gives you time to greatly reduce net CO2 emissions while you figure out how to reduce gross CO2 emissions effectively. And out of all countries the UK is the one of the few that could actually plant half it's land area in trees.
gnode 7y ago
The slow initial growth of trees makes me wonder whether we'd be better planting fast growing crops like bamboo and hemp which can be processed into long term materials like fibreboard and bioplastic or added to concrete.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  and seaweed near areas with ocean access. I wonder if you could have wastewater treatment plants that feed seaweed (in a large enclosure with seawater access, done responsibly), then harvest the seaweed, dry it, and send the carbon straight to mines for sequestration. More simply, perhaps farmers could be encouraged to sink waste carbon in the same way. Corn farmers could be encouraged to send the husks to sequestration instead of burning (I know they use the ashes as compost, so there are downsides). Or hemp, as you said, strip the leaves from the stems and send one or the other to a carbon sink.
  - gnode 7y ago
    Rather than immediately sequestering the carbon, it seems to me that it would make economic sense to use fibrous plant materials in products. By taxing competing non ecologically friendly alternatives like fossil oil-based plastics, and sending carbon-containing products to landfill, a greater financial incentive is created for growers, and carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere rapidly and long-term.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Is the carbon sequestered when the paper bags are sent to landfil, or do the bags rot releasing a mix of co2 and methane, making this a negative result because of the extra warming effects of methane?
      - gnode 7y ago
        Properly managed landfill is given a cover to prevent gas release, and gas harvested via wells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas Anaerobic decay of carboniferous matter produces much less carbon loss as gas than aerobic decay. Captured methane is destructively utilised, reducing its greenhouse gas concerns. Processing fibre crops into particular bioplastics can also reduce potential for gaseous decay. This seems favourable when compared to trees which produce large quantities of openly decaying matter (e.g. fallen leaves) throughout their lives, and unless lumbered, will almost entirely decay when they die.
    - JudgeWapner 7y ago
      Processing and transport requires energy which is unlikely to be renewable. To maximize impact I think we need to find some efficient system, perhaps algae or GMO plants or weeds, that sinks carbon straight into the earth. Perhaps very verdant places like Minnesota, residents could be encouraged to collect deciduous leaves each year and round them up for sequestration (which again requires energy). Or renewable and nuclear power plants could use all of their excess power toward some kind of machine that scrubs co2, which becomes a solid at relatively high temperature of -75C (compared to liquid o2 or n2).

quixoticelixer- 7y ago

Planting trees can only ever be part of the solution, but it gives you time to greatly reduce net CO2 emissions while you figure out how to reduce gross CO2 emissions effectively. And out of all countries the UK is the one of the few that could actually plant half it's land area in trees.

gnode 7y ago

The slow initial growth of trees makes me wonder whether we'd be better planting fast growing crops like bamboo and hemp which can be processed into long term materials like fibreboard and bioplastic or added to concrete.

JudgeWapner 7y ago
and seaweed near areas with ocean access. I wonder if you could have wastewater treatment plants that feed seaweed (in a large enclosure with seawater access, done responsibly), then harvest the seaweed, dry it, and send the carbon straight to mines for sequestration. More simply, perhaps farmers could be encouraged to sink waste carbon in the same way. Corn farmers could be encouraged to send the husks to sequestration instead of burning (I know they use the ashes as compost, so there are downsides). Or hemp, as you said, strip the leaves from the stems and send one or the other to a carbon sink.
- gnode 7y ago
  Rather than immediately sequestering the carbon, it seems to me that it would make economic sense to use fibrous plant materials in products. By taxing competing non ecologically friendly alternatives like fossil oil-based plastics, and sending carbon-containing products to landfill, a greater financial incentive is created for growers, and carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere rapidly and long-term.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Is the carbon sequestered when the paper bags are sent to landfil, or do the bags rot releasing a mix of co2 and methane, making this a negative result because of the extra warming effects of methane?
    - gnode 7y ago
      Properly managed landfill is given a cover to prevent gas release, and gas harvested via wells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas Anaerobic decay of carboniferous matter produces much less carbon loss as gas than aerobic decay. Captured methane is destructively utilised, reducing its greenhouse gas concerns. Processing fibre crops into particular bioplastics can also reduce potential for gaseous decay. This seems favourable when compared to trees which produce large quantities of openly decaying matter (e.g. fallen leaves) throughout their lives, and unless lumbered, will almost entirely decay when they die.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    Processing and transport requires energy which is unlikely to be renewable. To maximize impact I think we need to find some efficient system, perhaps algae or GMO plants or weeds, that sinks carbon straight into the earth. Perhaps very verdant places like Minnesota, residents could be encouraged to collect deciduous leaves each year and round them up for sequestration (which again requires energy). Or renewable and nuclear power plants could use all of their excess power toward some kind of machine that scrubs co2, which becomes a solid at relatively high temperature of -75C (compared to liquid o2 or n2).