4 ms·

All plants are carbon neutral. What we need to do is to stop adding new fossil carbon into the biosphere.

frankbreetz 5y ago
If they decompose they are carbon neutral. I've seen some schemes calling for the burying/sinking of organic matter so that would be a carbon negative process (assuming the act of burying/sinking doesn't release too much carbon) If you plant a new forest it would take some carbon out of the atmosphere because old dying trees would be replaced by new tree. Sure eventually the carbon inputs and outputs would be equal, but the built up forest would hold some carbon.
- enriquto 5y ago
  > the burying/sinking of organic matter Sure, if you bury wood in deep mines and seal them, you are removing carbon from the biosphere. But for that, it doesn't really matter if it was wood that you grew or an already existing forest. The mere act of planting is neutral, it's the burying that is important. By that, you notice that it would be fairly idiotic to keep unearthing old carbon and burying new carbon at the same time. Thus, it is absolutely essential to stop unearthing million-year-old carbon and putting it in circulation.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    The statement here is "all plants are carbon neutral" and therefore ".. carbon mitigation actions involving plants are idiotic" ?! .. Can someone with actual knowledge please break this thought-cycle while I am not thinking about consecutive 43+ (110F) degree days here?
    - enriquto 5y ago
      Planting plants is great and it will make you and me happy. I also love plants and forests. But if we still keep mining oil and burning it, we'll have warmer and warmer days every year due to the greenhouse effect.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        Planting big forests will change local microclimate, though. A lot more rain than without them. For this reason, living in the heavily forested countries on the equator is much more tolerable than living in the interior of the Arabian peninsula.
ip26 5y ago
Superficially agree, but I would like to point out that while a tree is neutral, a forest is more of a sink, because as trees die new ones germinate. Thus the forest can retain carbon indefinitely.
- enriquto 5y ago
  It really depends on the definition of "neutral". Is it neutral with respect to the atmosphere or to the biosphere? I'm very skeptical that as we keep mining new carbon from the deeps every year, we con manage to put all this carbon into the biosphere, and none into the atmosphere.
  - ip26 5y ago
    I’m not saying we can effectively offset fossil carbon by growing the biosphere - we’re currently shrinking the biosphere after all - but it’s an additional benefit to restoring damaged ecosystems.
BurningFrog 5y ago
Forests in steady state are carbon neutral. This is an important insight not widely spread. They're also oxygen neutral. But a new forest will be a large carbon sink if allowed to remain. Individual trees are also great carbon sinks, as long as the resulting wood is not consumed. I wonder about just growing trees/bamboo and storing the logs on big piles as a carbon sink. Or what if we GMO some algae that grabs carbon through photosynthesis, and then sinks to the ocean floor?
- gonzo41 5y ago
  I think we're going to a have a boom of CRISPR derived plants that are going to help us out big time.
  - SKILNER 5y ago
    Interesting! Can you point to any references?
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  If you'll build things from the wood rather than burning it, it'll still be carbon-neutral for many years. And you can grow new tree where it was cut, to consume more carbon. Now the question is how to utilise used wood without releasing carbon. May be just drown it to deep water?
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    The Baltic and, I believe. the Black Sea, preserves sunken ships for many centuries, because no wood eating organisms can live in that water. So it seems you could weigh wood with some rocks and sink it there as a permanent enough solution.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I wonder about just growing trees/bamboo and storing the logs on big piles as a carbon sink. Biochar is pretty similar to what you're describing.
- 5y ago
inglor_cz 5y ago
If we could reforest Sahara, a lot of CO2 would be trapped in that new forest. Probably enough of it not to worry about climate change for a long time. Of course, reforesting Sahara is a tall order. Even Israelis, who are arguably very good in reforesting semiarid regions, only have limited experience in this regard.

If they decompose they are carbon neutral. I've seen some schemes calling for the burying/sinking of organic matter so that would be a carbon negative process (assuming the act of burying/sinking doesn't release too much carbon) If you plant a new forest it would take some carbon out of the atmosphere because old dying trees would be replaced by new tree. Sure eventually the carbon inputs and outputs would be equal, but the built up forest would hold some carbon.

enriquto 5y ago
> the burying/sinking of organic matter Sure, if you bury wood in deep mines and seal them, you are removing carbon from the biosphere. But for that, it doesn't really matter if it was wood that you grew or an already existing forest. The mere act of planting is neutral, it's the burying that is important. By that, you notice that it would be fairly idiotic to keep unearthing old carbon and burying new carbon at the same time. Thus, it is absolutely essential to stop unearthing million-year-old carbon and putting it in circulation.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  The statement here is "all plants are carbon neutral" and therefore ".. carbon mitigation actions involving plants are idiotic" ?! .. Can someone with actual knowledge please break this thought-cycle while I am not thinking about consecutive 43+ (110F) degree days here?
  - enriquto 5y ago
    Planting plants is great and it will make you and me happy. I also love plants and forests. But if we still keep mining oil and burning it, we'll have warmer and warmer days every year due to the greenhouse effect.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      Planting big forests will change local microclimate, though. A lot more rain than without them. For this reason, living in the heavily forested countries on the equator is much more tolerable than living in the interior of the Arabian peninsula.

ip26 5y ago

Superficially agree, but I would like to point out that while a tree is neutral, a forest is more of a sink, because as trees die new ones germinate. Thus the forest can retain carbon indefinitely.

enriquto 5y ago
It really depends on the definition of "neutral". Is it neutral with respect to the atmosphere or to the biosphere? I'm very skeptical that as we keep mining new carbon from the deeps every year, we con manage to put all this carbon into the biosphere, and none into the atmosphere.
- ip26 5y ago
  I’m not saying we can effectively offset fossil carbon by growing the biosphere - we’re currently shrinking the biosphere after all - but it’s an additional benefit to restoring damaged ecosystems.

BurningFrog 5y ago

Forests in steady state are carbon neutral. This is an important insight not widely spread. They're also oxygen neutral. But a new forest will be a large carbon sink if allowed to remain. Individual trees are also great carbon sinks, as long as the resulting wood is not consumed. I wonder about just growing trees/bamboo and storing the logs on big piles as a carbon sink. Or what if we GMO some algae that grabs carbon through photosynthesis, and then sinks to the ocean floor?

gonzo41 5y ago
I think we're going to a have a boom of CRISPR derived plants that are going to help us out big time.
- SKILNER 5y ago
  Interesting! Can you point to any references?
vbezhenar 5y ago
If you'll build things from the wood rather than burning it, it'll still be carbon-neutral for many years. And you can grow new tree where it was cut, to consume more carbon. Now the question is how to utilise used wood without releasing carbon. May be just drown it to deep water?
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  The Baltic and, I believe. the Black Sea, preserves sunken ships for many centuries, because no wood eating organisms can live in that water. So it seems you could weigh wood with some rocks and sink it there as a permanent enough solution.
gruez 5y ago
>I wonder about just growing trees/bamboo and storing the logs on big piles as a carbon sink. Biochar is pretty similar to what you're describing.
5y ago

inglor_cz 5y ago

If we could reforest Sahara, a lot of CO2 would be trapped in that new forest. Probably enough of it not to worry about climate change for a long time. Of course, reforesting Sahara is a tall order. Even Israelis, who are arguably very good in reforesting semiarid regions, only have limited experience in this regard.