7 ms·

Some basic conservation of matter arguments apply. As long as a plant is growing, it will sink carbon. When it dies and rots, it will release that carbon again.

Some basic conservation of matter arguments apply. As long as a plant is growing, it will sink carbon. When it dies and rots, it will release that carbon again. So, a growing forest will sink carbon, but a steady state one will not. This is why I have always been sceptical of tree planting as a carbon offest . . . it is short term, at best. Of course, there are a myriad of other reasons why tree planting might be desirable. The caveat to the above is the extent to which dead plant matter gets permanently buried (turned into peat or whatever) rather than rotting. Under some conditions, forests really will work as a carbon sink, but it has never been as simple as tree planting == good, and I am glad to see research acknowledging that. As with everything, it is complicated.

wing-_-nuts 6y ago
IMHO we need to do everything we can to buy us enough time to innovate our way out of the problem, so yeah, tree planting == good so long as the trees live long enough to do the job.
dbingham 6y ago
The matter is conserved: it becomes soil. Most of the carbon an individual plant absorbed when it was growing will become soil when it dies and decays. (Should note "absorbed" here refers to the carbon that became part of the structure of the plant - not the carbon the plant breathed in. Plants breath out most of the carbon they breath in.) Yes, it releases some of it during the decay process, but a lot of it (most of it) does get sequestered even after death. That's where humus comes from. And it's pretty easy to meassure that. And for deciduous trees, they are sequestering yearly as the leaves they drop decay. It wouldn't surprise me if the amount that is being sequestered is being overestimated in many studies, but the mechanism for it happening is pretty clear and that it is happening is pretty incontrovertible - it falls right out of the chemical math - and I would be much more likely to question any study that questioned that than to question that mechanism itself. It's really frustating to me that what is being posted here is basically just a headline and not even an abstract unless you have a subscription to Nature.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  Yes, but bacteria action continues in that soil and continues releasing CO2 for a long time to come. Some of it will feed new plants (anything taken from the soil is not being taken from the air). The question is how much of that soil carbon truly becomes permanently sequestered? Some of it may be there for a long time, but the humus layer will not become infinitely thick. Once we are talking about an old growth forest, the forest will have reached a somewhat steady state. I am not saying it cannot continue to act as a carbon sink, just that I suspect it to become less effective over time, and that it will not work in all conditions. A number of research papers have pretty much shown this lately, not just this one.
  - jvanderbot 6y ago
    Assuming rich soil accumulates over time in a long-running forest, what happens to the lower layers? Do they release carbon more quickly as they "die" or do they store it? If they store it, then that's sequestration, right?
    - vkou 6y ago
      It is sequestration, but it can take thousands of years for an inch of rich soil to accumulate in a 'steady state' system. Most fossil fuel carbon was originally sequestered in a world where very few things could break down dead trees. That world is millions of years gone, current natural carbon sinks are 99% temporary.
      - saalweachter 6y ago
        There's a certain argument to be made for timber farming as a way to extend our temporary carbon sinks -- trees that fall over rot, releasing their carbon, trees that are cut down and turned into houses may be protected from decay for tens or hundreds of years. You could really go whole-hog into attempting to maximize the amount of timber you can stuff into a house -- start building double-stud walls with 12 inch on-center spacing just to triple the number of 2x6's used, fall in love with giant cross-laminated timber panels, etc etc.
bamboozled 6y ago
But you can imagine how much a large tree weighs, particularly a hardwood, a large portion of tree being made of carbon sucked from the atmosphere. Then the foliage becomes soil and buried. Plant a trillion trees, you’re going to see some changes to the composition of the atmosphere over time. If the forests of said trees are self -regenerating, it’s going to be a decent sink.
theflyinghorse 6y ago
> tree planting == good In which cases is it not? Other than short term carbon sink we get more trees, wild life gets more trees allowing it to flourish, we get wood for building material, dead trees become soil.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  You are missing the context; I think suggesting tree planting as a serious method to combat climate change is absolutely harebrained. That does not mean I am against tree planting in principle. I agree with you and I am strongly in favour of rewilding for other reasons. Of course, that still means planting the right trees in the right places. Random planting of random trees is not likely to help much and may be a net negative if it gives people the feeling that they are doing something good when they aren't really.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    Maybe it just asks for being combined with a reasonably accurate accounting of the forest's carbon store at different points of time. This way, startups proposing forestry as a solution for carbon capture would be able to present accurate results and figures.
henearkr 6y ago
Don't you leave out the thickening of trunks, and most importantly, carbon storage from fallen leaves of deciduous trees? Imho, the humus is also a compartment of the forest that stores carbon (even if it will be slowly transformed). Also, the decay of fallen trees is very slow, and is not 100% into carbon dioxide (the carbon will remain a very long time in the body of numerous plant and animal species), whereas the combustion for human use is complete and on a much smaller scale of time.
- jandrese 6y ago
  The problem is that fallen leaves tend to decay in fairly short order. The total carbon capture is basically the current leaves plus one or two years of fallen leaves and that's it. The rest have returned most of their carbon to the atmosphere. And when you think about it, this makes sense. Trees aren't constantly burying themselves in their own leaves. The roots of trees stay about the same depth year after year, and they're not growing new root systems higher up the trunk.
  - njarboe 6y ago
    While I would guess that you are right for most trees, the Giant Sequoia redwood trees in California actually do bury themselves in their own pine needles. They can also grow roots out at a higher level, if needed. Of course they can live for thousands of years.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    It doesn't have to stay in the form of leaves. Only a fraction (maybe not tiny) really goes back to CO2, but a lot turns into other organisms, raw fiber, etc. So you argument would be: why then do trees not bury themselves in humus? I think that a fair part goes away with rain and water systems, and a small portion circulates in the form of mobile organisms.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      Leaves may blow around some, but on most of the forest floor there isn't anywhere for them to go. Some of the leaves get eaten or turned into fungus or whatnot, but those die off too and eventually return to the air. There was a time in the Earth's history where this wasn't the case. During the carboniferous phase plant life didn't decay and biomatter piled up on the forest floor in miles-thick layers. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere dropped so low that the planet was verging on an iceball at times. The carbon balance was only maintained via enormous forest fires in the oxygen rich atmosphere.
mannykannot 6y ago
True enough, but the situation currently is not one of expansion or even of a steady-state: old-growth forests are declining rapidly, and a good deal of the carbon they are squestering is being released over the short term. The issue with forests is their being reservoirs that are being emptied.
ravi-delia 6y ago
Naive tree planting definitely isn't as simple a carbon capture method as 1 ton trees -> -1 ton carbon, but in current circumstances it's still a good idea. For one, thanks to deforestation most tree planting (so long as they're planted in a sustainable way) is growth, increasing total biomass. For another, if I could snap my fingers and offset some current day carbon emissions by a few decades, I definitely would. We are right against the wall at the moment, buying a bit of time could do a lot for us.
dragontamer 6y ago
> When it dies and rots, it will release that carbon again. What happens when a tree dies and turns into a house? > it is short term, at best. If the house stands for 100 years, then you've successfully sequestered said carbon for over 100 years (because only after then will the rotting process start). Even then, a lot of carbon turns into humus (which btw: we're also running out of Topsoil for our farms). So creating more carbon-rich humus as a topsoil replacement for our farms is ALSO a priority. Since humus is the final product of the rotting process, I'd argue that the carbon-content of humus represents the "permanently sequestered" bits of the carbon. Which IIRC, is still a substantial portion of the weight of the tree. There's also all the leaves that fell off the tree and turned into humus. Probably not as much by weight, but its quite possible that the leaves themselves allow the tree to sequester MORE than its weight in carbon.
tastyfreeze 6y ago
We can go a long way in removing carbon from the atmosphere by regenerating our degraded soils by bringing them back to life. Some estimates of atmospheric carbon sources list released soil carbon around 40%. Fertile soil is filled with carbon in the form of life and decomposing material (food for life). While this video doesn't address carbon directly it does show how much soil around the world is degraded to the point where all life and carbon in the soil is gone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4p-kQ6D8aA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4p-kQ6D8aA Edit: Soil as carbon sink https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/02/21/can-soil-help-combat-climate-change/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/02/21/can-soil-help-c...
xjlin0 6y ago
Not sure about your definition of "short term" here. Where does the carbon in coal come from? The last time I read it's from the plants.
- jandrese 6y ago
  The carbon in coal was previously sequestered underground and not part of the current carbon cycle. By burning all of that coal, oil, and natural gas we un-sequestered all of that carbon. So even if we replanted all of the forests there are still many gigatons of extra carbon in the atmosphere. It's "short term" because the plants will release the carbon back into the atmosphere in a few decades. So to combat climate change we need ways to sequester the carbon that will keep it out of the atmosphere permanently. There are no good solutions for this currently. Maybe at some point someone will figure out a way to economically create massive pure diamonds using CO2 from the atmosphere with renewable energy so we could use them as building materials or something. Thanks to the laws of thermodynamics we'll have to invest something like all of the energy we produced using fossil fuels to fix this problem. We can cheat a bit by going to a stable form instead of making it straight up crude oil again, but it's still an almost unfathomable amount of energy we're going to need. And our politicians still arguing if it is a good idea to stop digging the hole, and fighting tooth and nail against it. There are no jobs on a dead planet.
  - njarboe 6y ago
    Many species of trees live for hundreds of years, not decades.
jonas21 6y ago
> it is short term, at best. Short-term, where short-term is around 70 to 100 years [1], seems just fine to me. It'll buy us time to develop better technology for carbon sequestration and clean energy. In fact, the problem with planting trees might be the opposite -- trees don't reach their maximum rate of carbon sequestration for a couple of decades, and by then it might be too late. [1] https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2011/fpl_2011_lippke001.pdf https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2011/fpl_2011_lippke00...
samatman 6y ago
Properly managed agroforestry is an excellent carbon sink, where properly managed is doing all of the heavy lifting here. The napkin strategy is to grow fast woods, kiln them into charcoal, spread some of it on the forest as a soil amendment, spread the rest on agricultural land, repeat. Elemental carbon weatherizes into CO2 very slowly, on the order of centuries, the half-life is more than a thousand years. So-called "biochar" (it's just charcoal) is an excellent soil amendment, mitigates topsoil depletion, supports good microbiomes, adsorbs fertilizers and releases them slowly, it's a big win. If we manage to do this on the necessary scale, we might eventually hit the point where adding more char to soil isn't worth it from an ecosystem health perspective, and then we can just put it into the various large holes we've dug into the earth to extract minerals. There is something very tidy about filling an old coal mine with synthetic coal!
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  Yes, back when I was doing archeology, we'd find pieces of charcoal 700-800 years old. And that was in the forests of Belize.
njarboe 6y ago
In the California Sierra Nevada mountains almost all of the land was harvested for timber in the last 150 years. These forests contained mostly trees that were many hundreds to thousands of years old. So if we plant the right trees and let these harvested forests keep growing, instead of harvesting them again, we will get a thousand years of increasing carbon capture. I'm not sure about other forest ecosystems, but "short term" could be hundreds to thousands of years. A quite useful timescale for a large carbon sink as we try to get to a more normal atmospheric carbon dioxide level in the future.

wing-_-nuts 6y ago

IMHO we need to do everything we can to buy us enough time to innovate our way out of the problem, so yeah, tree planting == good so long as the trees live long enough to do the job.

dbingham 6y ago

The matter is conserved: it becomes soil. Most of the carbon an individual plant absorbed when it was growing will become soil when it dies and decays. (Should note "absorbed" here refers to the carbon that became part of the structure of the plant - not the carbon the plant breathed in. Plants breath out most of the carbon they breath in.) Yes, it releases some of it during the decay process, but a lot of it (most of it) does get sequestered even after death. That's where humus comes from. And it's pretty easy to meassure that. And for deciduous trees, they are sequestering yearly as the leaves they drop decay. It wouldn't surprise me if the amount that is being sequestered is being overestimated in many studies, but the mechanism for it happening is pretty clear and that it is happening is pretty incontrovertible - it falls right out of the chemical math - and I would be much more likely to question any study that questioned that than to question that mechanism itself. It's really frustating to me that what is being posted here is basically just a headline and not even an abstract unless you have a subscription to Nature.

goodcanadian 6y ago
Yes, but bacteria action continues in that soil and continues releasing CO2 for a long time to come. Some of it will feed new plants (anything taken from the soil is not being taken from the air). The question is how much of that soil carbon truly becomes permanently sequestered? Some of it may be there for a long time, but the humus layer will not become infinitely thick. Once we are talking about an old growth forest, the forest will have reached a somewhat steady state. I am not saying it cannot continue to act as a carbon sink, just that I suspect it to become less effective over time, and that it will not work in all conditions. A number of research papers have pretty much shown this lately, not just this one.
- jvanderbot 6y ago
  Assuming rich soil accumulates over time in a long-running forest, what happens to the lower layers? Do they release carbon more quickly as they "die" or do they store it? If they store it, then that's sequestration, right?
  - vkou 6y ago
    It is sequestration, but it can take thousands of years for an inch of rich soil to accumulate in a 'steady state' system. Most fossil fuel carbon was originally sequestered in a world where very few things could break down dead trees. That world is millions of years gone, current natural carbon sinks are 99% temporary.
    - saalweachter 6y ago
      There's a certain argument to be made for timber farming as a way to extend our temporary carbon sinks -- trees that fall over rot, releasing their carbon, trees that are cut down and turned into houses may be protected from decay for tens or hundreds of years. You could really go whole-hog into attempting to maximize the amount of timber you can stuff into a house -- start building double-stud walls with 12 inch on-center spacing just to triple the number of 2x6's used, fall in love with giant cross-laminated timber panels, etc etc.

bamboozled 6y ago

But you can imagine how much a large tree weighs, particularly a hardwood, a large portion of tree being made of carbon sucked from the atmosphere. Then the foliage becomes soil and buried. Plant a trillion trees, you’re going to see some changes to the composition of the atmosphere over time. If the forests of said trees are self -regenerating, it’s going to be a decent sink.

theflyinghorse 6y ago

> tree planting == good In which cases is it not? Other than short term carbon sink we get more trees, wild life gets more trees allowing it to flourish, we get wood for building material, dead trees become soil.

goodcanadian 6y ago
You are missing the context; I think suggesting tree planting as a serious method to combat climate change is absolutely harebrained. That does not mean I am against tree planting in principle. I agree with you and I am strongly in favour of rewilding for other reasons. Of course, that still means planting the right trees in the right places. Random planting of random trees is not likely to help much and may be a net negative if it gives people the feeling that they are doing something good when they aren't really.
- henearkr 6y ago
  Maybe it just asks for being combined with a reasonably accurate accounting of the forest's carbon store at different points of time. This way, startups proposing forestry as a solution for carbon capture would be able to present accurate results and figures.

henearkr 6y ago

Don't you leave out the thickening of trunks, and most importantly, carbon storage from fallen leaves of deciduous trees? Imho, the humus is also a compartment of the forest that stores carbon (even if it will be slowly transformed). Also, the decay of fallen trees is very slow, and is not 100% into carbon dioxide (the carbon will remain a very long time in the body of numerous plant and animal species), whereas the combustion for human use is complete and on a much smaller scale of time.

jandrese 6y ago
The problem is that fallen leaves tend to decay in fairly short order. The total carbon capture is basically the current leaves plus one or two years of fallen leaves and that's it. The rest have returned most of their carbon to the atmosphere. And when you think about it, this makes sense. Trees aren't constantly burying themselves in their own leaves. The roots of trees stay about the same depth year after year, and they're not growing new root systems higher up the trunk.
- njarboe 6y ago
  While I would guess that you are right for most trees, the Giant Sequoia redwood trees in California actually do bury themselves in their own pine needles. They can also grow roots out at a higher level, if needed. Of course they can live for thousands of years.
- henearkr 6y ago
  It doesn't have to stay in the form of leaves. Only a fraction (maybe not tiny) really goes back to CO2, but a lot turns into other organisms, raw fiber, etc. So you argument would be: why then do trees not bury themselves in humus? I think that a fair part goes away with rain and water systems, and a small portion circulates in the form of mobile organisms.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    Leaves may blow around some, but on most of the forest floor there isn't anywhere for them to go. Some of the leaves get eaten or turned into fungus or whatnot, but those die off too and eventually return to the air. There was a time in the Earth's history where this wasn't the case. During the carboniferous phase plant life didn't decay and biomatter piled up on the forest floor in miles-thick layers. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere dropped so low that the planet was verging on an iceball at times. The carbon balance was only maintained via enormous forest fires in the oxygen rich atmosphere.

mannykannot 6y ago

True enough, but the situation currently is not one of expansion or even of a steady-state: old-growth forests are declining rapidly, and a good deal of the carbon they are squestering is being released over the short term. The issue with forests is their being reservoirs that are being emptied.

ravi-delia 6y ago

Naive tree planting definitely isn't as simple a carbon capture method as 1 ton trees -> -1 ton carbon, but in current circumstances it's still a good idea. For one, thanks to deforestation most tree planting (so long as they're planted in a sustainable way) is growth, increasing total biomass. For another, if I could snap my fingers and offset some current day carbon emissions by a few decades, I definitely would. We are right against the wall at the moment, buying a bit of time could do a lot for us.

dragontamer 6y ago

> When it dies and rots, it will release that carbon again. What happens when a tree dies and turns into a house? > it is short term, at best. If the house stands for 100 years, then you've successfully sequestered said carbon for over 100 years (because only after then will the rotting process start). Even then, a lot of carbon turns into humus (which btw: we're also running out of Topsoil for our farms). So creating more carbon-rich humus as a topsoil replacement for our farms is ALSO a priority. Since humus is the final product of the rotting process, I'd argue that the carbon-content of humus represents the "permanently sequestered" bits of the carbon. Which IIRC, is still a substantial portion of the weight of the tree. There's also all the leaves that fell off the tree and turned into humus. Probably not as much by weight, but its quite possible that the leaves themselves allow the tree to sequester MORE than its weight in carbon.

tastyfreeze 6y ago

We can go a long way in removing carbon from the atmosphere by regenerating our degraded soils by bringing them back to life. Some estimates of atmospheric carbon sources list released soil carbon around 40%. Fertile soil is filled with carbon in the form of life and decomposing material (food for life). While this video doesn't address carbon directly it does show how much soil around the world is degraded to the point where all life and carbon in the soil is gone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4p-kQ6D8aA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4p-kQ6D8aA Edit: Soil as carbon sink https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/02/21/can-soil-help-combat-climate-change/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/02/21/can-soil-help-c...

xjlin0 6y ago

Not sure about your definition of "short term" here. Where does the carbon in coal come from? The last time I read it's from the plants.

jandrese 6y ago
The carbon in coal was previously sequestered underground and not part of the current carbon cycle. By burning all of that coal, oil, and natural gas we un-sequestered all of that carbon. So even if we replanted all of the forests there are still many gigatons of extra carbon in the atmosphere. It's "short term" because the plants will release the carbon back into the atmosphere in a few decades. So to combat climate change we need ways to sequester the carbon that will keep it out of the atmosphere permanently. There are no good solutions for this currently. Maybe at some point someone will figure out a way to economically create massive pure diamonds using CO2 from the atmosphere with renewable energy so we could use them as building materials or something. Thanks to the laws of thermodynamics we'll have to invest something like all of the energy we produced using fossil fuels to fix this problem. We can cheat a bit by going to a stable form instead of making it straight up crude oil again, but it's still an almost unfathomable amount of energy we're going to need. And our politicians still arguing if it is a good idea to stop digging the hole, and fighting tooth and nail against it. There are no jobs on a dead planet.
- njarboe 6y ago
  Many species of trees live for hundreds of years, not decades.

jonas21 6y ago

> it is short term, at best. Short-term, where short-term is around 70 to 100 years [1], seems just fine to me. It'll buy us time to develop better technology for carbon sequestration and clean energy. In fact, the problem with planting trees might be the opposite -- trees don't reach their maximum rate of carbon sequestration for a couple of decades, and by then it might be too late. [1] https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2011/fpl_2011_lippke001.pdf https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2011/fpl_2011_lippke00...

samatman 6y ago

Properly managed agroforestry is an excellent carbon sink, where properly managed is doing all of the heavy lifting here. The napkin strategy is to grow fast woods, kiln them into charcoal, spread some of it on the forest as a soil amendment, spread the rest on agricultural land, repeat. Elemental carbon weatherizes into CO2 very slowly, on the order of centuries, the half-life is more than a thousand years. So-called "biochar" (it's just charcoal) is an excellent soil amendment, mitigates topsoil depletion, supports good microbiomes, adsorbs fertilizers and releases them slowly, it's a big win. If we manage to do this on the necessary scale, we might eventually hit the point where adding more char to soil isn't worth it from an ecosystem health perspective, and then we can just put it into the various large holes we've dug into the earth to extract minerals. There is something very tidy about filling an old coal mine with synthetic coal!

jonnycomputer 6y ago
Yes, back when I was doing archeology, we'd find pieces of charcoal 700-800 years old. And that was in the forests of Belize.

njarboe 6y ago

In the California Sierra Nevada mountains almost all of the land was harvested for timber in the last 150 years. These forests contained mostly trees that were many hundreds to thousands of years old. So if we plant the right trees and let these harvested forests keep growing, instead of harvesting them again, we will get a thousand years of increasing carbon capture. I'm not sure about other forest ecosystems, but "short term" could be hundreds to thousands of years. A quite useful timescale for a large carbon sink as we try to get to a more normal atmospheric carbon dioxide level in the future.