4 ms·
I didn't downvote, but I suspect those counterpoints are second-order and very minor compared to the sequestration rates of a tree itself. I can't bring myself
by tunesmith 7y ago
I didn't downvote, but I suspect those counterpoints are second-order and very minor compared to the sequestration rates of a tree itself. I can't bring myself to believe that because of those counterpoints, every new tree on average sequesters zero carbon. The important stat is on average, how much carbon does each new tree sequester; that's what drives the models.
- avip 7y agoIs your suspicion based on facts? Love of trees? I'm pretty confident OP up there also loves trees. But we're at a point where we need to calculate efforts and allocate resources wisely. Maybe we need fewer forests and more nuclear. idk. I know for a fact every tree I can plant with my bare hands would be carbon negative, because I did the math.