4 ms·

Aren't trees a very efficient and cheap way to capture CO2 from air and store it in a safe way?

cjbenedikt 5y ago
Only unless they burn down...as Microsoft had to realize in the North East just recently.
gumby 5y ago
It’s just temporary storage, as the trees die and release all the carbon back as they decompose (worse, they release a bunch of methane in the process). Also they burn as the climate changes: the Dixie fire destroyed a bunch of carbon offset forest (putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere). Which can be replanted and new certificates issued for the same land. Brilliant! I have nothing against planting trees and they can have some temporary (but slow) value, but they don’t really make a dent on fossil fuel consumption which is centuries of sequestered carbon being released every year.
- kumarvvr 5y ago
  Well, trees have lifespans that are counted in decades, so they should offer a good buffer for humanity until we sort our energy source issues. And, if you have programs that are like rolling tree planting systems, then you can build a pretty long lasting buffer.
  - gumby 5y ago
    Trees are nice, and have a bunch of benefits in terms of moisture, cooling, aesthetics, and as something you can burn in a camp fire. They are great and we should have more of them. But as a form of carbon capture they are a cruel joke and people whe supply credits for that are fraudsters. Even if your plan were to plant trees, cut them down when mature and dump them at the bottom of the ocean (away from the continental shelves) and replace them, they could not keep up with fossil fuel burning which releases about 400 years of global carbon production per year. It’s like putting a 64-byte L1 cache in front of your CPU.
engineer_22 5y ago
If I understand correctly, fossil fuels are ancient swampy bogs. Trying to imagine a situation where hundreds of vertical feet of carbon rich soils can accumulate, I think of a river delta slowly extending to sea, or an ancient lake eutrophying. Perhaps a geologist will come along who can explain better.

Only unless they burn down...as Microsoft had to realize in the North East just recently.

It’s just temporary storage, as the trees die and release all the carbon back as they decompose (worse, they release a bunch of methane in the process). Also they burn as the climate changes: the Dixie fire destroyed a bunch of carbon offset forest (putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere). Which can be replanted and new certificates issued for the same land. Brilliant! I have nothing against planting trees and they can have some temporary (but slow) value, but they don’t really make a dent on fossil fuel consumption which is centuries of sequestered carbon being released every year.

kumarvvr 5y ago
Well, trees have lifespans that are counted in decades, so they should offer a good buffer for humanity until we sort our energy source issues. And, if you have programs that are like rolling tree planting systems, then you can build a pretty long lasting buffer.
- gumby 5y ago
  Trees are nice, and have a bunch of benefits in terms of moisture, cooling, aesthetics, and as something you can burn in a camp fire. They are great and we should have more of them. But as a form of carbon capture they are a cruel joke and people whe supply credits for that are fraudsters. Even if your plan were to plant trees, cut them down when mature and dump them at the bottom of the ocean (away from the continental shelves) and replace them, they could not keep up with fossil fuel burning which releases about 400 years of global carbon production per year. It’s like putting a 64-byte L1 cache in front of your CPU.

engineer_22 5y ago

If I understand correctly, fossil fuels are ancient swampy bogs. Trying to imagine a situation where hundreds of vertical feet of carbon rich soils can accumulate, I think of a river delta slowly extending to sea, or an ancient lake eutrophying. Perhaps a geologist will come along who can explain better.