6 ms·

AFAIK tree sequestration is marginal compared to the amount of co2 to be captured. Also, trees rot, and the decomposition process reverts a chunk of the process

AFAIK tree sequestration is marginal compared to the amount of co2 to be captured. Also, trees rot, and the decomposition process reverts a chunk of the process (releases co2)

lsb 7y ago
"a worldwide planting programme could remove two-thirds of all the emissions from human activities that remain in the atmosphere today" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting...
davedx 7y ago
> AFAIK tree sequestration is marginal compared to the amount of co2 to be captured Nope. Tree sequestration is extremely effective on a global scale. That's why it's so important that we prevent deforestation. "Intact forests and those re-growing after disturbance (like harvesting or windthrow) sequestered around 4 billion tonnes of carbon per year over the measurement period — equivalent to almost 60% of emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production combined." http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-much-carbon-can-the-worlds-forests-absorb-14816 http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-much-carbon-can-the...
- aforwardslash 7y ago
  Well, the study considers already existing forests. Is it feasible to eg. increase global forestation by 100% to offset 60% of emissions? Not sure. Also, it considers a limited timespan. While it is not that relevant for undisturbed forests that usually have a stable ecosystem (trees born and die gradually), it may be an issue with disturbed ones; trees will tend to have about the same age and the same duration; this will cause release spikes related to decomposition. Also, "planting trees" usually is a placeholder response that largely ignores the impact of monocultures in the soil, subterranean water reservations and propagation of forest fires, plus the fact that co2 tends to concentrate higher in the atmosphere, way above the average tree line. In summary: its not as bad as I thought when I wrote the previous reply, sure. But it is still far from feasible.
  - davedx 7y ago
    > plus the fact that co2 tends to concentrate higher in the atmosphere, way above the average tree line I looked this up and seems it's the opposite. I'd politely suggest you check your assumptions are correct. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-less-carbon-dioxide-at-higher-altitudes?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Is-there-less-carbon-dioxide-at-higher... https://667-per-cm.net/2015/08/04/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-as-a-function-of-altitude/ https://667-per-cm.net/2015/08/04/atmospheric-concentration-...

AFAIK tree sequestration is marginal compared to the amount of co2 to be captured. Also, trees rot, and the decomposition process reverts a chunk of the process (releases co2)

lsb 7y ago

"a worldwide planting programme could remove two-thirds of all the emissions from human activities that remain in the atmosphere today" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting...

davedx 7y ago

> AFAIK tree sequestration is marginal compared to the amount of co2 to be captured Nope. Tree sequestration is extremely effective on a global scale. That's why it's so important that we prevent deforestation. "Intact forests and those re-growing after disturbance (like harvesting or windthrow) sequestered around 4 billion tonnes of carbon per year over the measurement period — equivalent to almost 60% of emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production combined." http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-much-carbon-can-the-worlds-forests-absorb-14816 http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-much-carbon-can-the...

aforwardslash 7y ago
Well, the study considers already existing forests. Is it feasible to eg. increase global forestation by 100% to offset 60% of emissions? Not sure. Also, it considers a limited timespan. While it is not that relevant for undisturbed forests that usually have a stable ecosystem (trees born and die gradually), it may be an issue with disturbed ones; trees will tend to have about the same age and the same duration; this will cause release spikes related to decomposition. Also, "planting trees" usually is a placeholder response that largely ignores the impact of monocultures in the soil, subterranean water reservations and propagation of forest fires, plus the fact that co2 tends to concentrate higher in the atmosphere, way above the average tree line. In summary: its not as bad as I thought when I wrote the previous reply, sure. But it is still far from feasible.
- davedx 7y ago
  > plus the fact that co2 tends to concentrate higher in the atmosphere, way above the average tree line I looked this up and seems it's the opposite. I'd politely suggest you check your assumptions are correct. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-less-carbon-dioxide-at-higher-altitudes?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Is-there-less-carbon-dioxide-at-higher... https://667-per-cm.net/2015/08/04/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-as-a-function-of-altitude/ https://667-per-cm.net/2015/08/04/atmospheric-concentration-...