3 ms·

I have been talking about this with my wife, how many trees would I have to plant to alleviate the amount of carbon I put into the atmosphere up to now. Since I

I have been talking about this with my wife, how many trees would I have to plant to alleviate the amount of carbon I put into the atmosphere up to now. Since I'm retiring soon, I hope to have a hobby that will be productive.

gameswithgo 7y ago
trees are only a buffer, they buy some time but don’t solve the problem
- arvesv 7y ago
  If we cut the trees and ship them somewhere they will not decay(south pole?). And then grow new trees and do the same thing again. That should remove carbon from the carbon cycle. Is this doable and sensible?
  - OrangeMango 7y ago
    It's probably doable, but likely not sensible. If you instead use the wood as lumber for durable items (such as houses and furniture), you will drastically slow the decay rate, reduce usage of other carbon-emitting processes, and make room for new trees to grow (which is extremely carbon negative). It won't solve the problem on its own, but it would certainly help.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  What are you saying? Don't bother?
- hsnewman 7y ago
  So the trees that grew in the Jurassic age, which were covered with soil and over millennium became coal and oil, did not sequester carbon? Using the above logic, no, because we, in the millions of years since burned it and now it's in the air? Trees may mostly buffer carbon, but they have the potential to buffer it for a really really long time.
- mac01021 7y ago
  Why? An acre of land converted _permanently_ from field/desert/parking lot to forest translates to X tons of carbon permanently removed from the atmosphere.
mixedmath 7y ago
I've also thought about that! And I seem to recall being surprised by the answer --- something like 2 trees per year per person roughly balances out on average (assuming the trees are healthy, never die, and grow forever). As a citation, I give a tongue-in-cheek blog post from some years ago [1]. [1]: https://davidlowryduda.com/how-fat-would-we-have-to-get-to-balance-carbon-emissions/ https://davidlowryduda.com/how-fat-would-we-have-to-get-to-b...

gameswithgo 7y ago

trees are only a buffer, they buy some time but don’t solve the problem

arvesv 7y ago
If we cut the trees and ship them somewhere they will not decay(south pole?). And then grow new trees and do the same thing again. That should remove carbon from the carbon cycle. Is this doable and sensible?
- OrangeMango 7y ago
  It's probably doable, but likely not sensible. If you instead use the wood as lumber for durable items (such as houses and furniture), you will drastically slow the decay rate, reduce usage of other carbon-emitting processes, and make room for new trees to grow (which is extremely carbon negative). It won't solve the problem on its own, but it would certainly help.
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
What are you saying? Don't bother?
hsnewman 7y ago
So the trees that grew in the Jurassic age, which were covered with soil and over millennium became coal and oil, did not sequester carbon? Using the above logic, no, because we, in the millions of years since burned it and now it's in the air? Trees may mostly buffer carbon, but they have the potential to buffer it for a really really long time.
mac01021 7y ago
Why? An acre of land converted _permanently_ from field/desert/parking lot to forest translates to X tons of carbon permanently removed from the atmosphere.

mixedmath 7y ago

I've also thought about that! And I seem to recall being surprised by the answer --- something like 2 trees per year per person roughly balances out on average (assuming the trees are healthy, never die, and grow forever). As a citation, I give a tongue-in-cheek blog post from some years ago [1]. [1]: https://davidlowryduda.com/how-fat-would-we-have-to-get-to-balance-carbon-emissions/ https://davidlowryduda.com/how-fat-would-we-have-to-get-to-b...