4 ms·
Seems like a shame we can't just sequester all that unwanted surplus carbon somehow, but I can't think of a practical way to do it. I suppose you could have so
by elihu 5y ago
Seems like a shame we can't just sequester all that unwanted surplus carbon somehow, but I can't think of a practical way to do it.
I suppose you could have some sort of program where the forest service designates areas that need thinning, and then people go out there with their pickup trucks and collect loads of organic matter, and no branches over, say, 6" in diameter. Loads get dropped off at a collection site, and the people are paid per mass. The organic matter either gets turned into products or converted to biochar and buried in a big hole somewhere.
That might work, but you'd probably need to pay quite a bit per ton to make it worthwhile to do mostly manually.
Maybe there's brush-clearing machinery that could make this economical to do on a massive scale?
- BurningFrog 5y agoOld fashioned logging can sequester whole forests quite effectively. Would also produce blue collar rural jobs.
- elihu 5y agoTrue, and in some cases it would be best to remove many of the full-grown trees. However, often times people would rather the large trees remain and just the combustible brush and debris removed (i.e. the organic material that would be removed by a prescribed burn done in ideal conditions). In this case you have plant matter that few people would object to being gone, but it doesn't have enough economic value to be profitable to remove without artificial incentives.
- toomanybeersies 5y agoControlled burns sequester carbon too, in the form of charcoal/ash. Trying to reduce fuel load by pulling it out and buying it in a hole isn't a good idea, as it ends up removing important nutrients that forests need.