4 ms·

I suppose to align incentives you should only get paid if you grow a tree cut it down and then bury the carbon [trunk] somehow. Anything less isn't permanently

I suppose to align incentives you should only get paid if you grow a tree cut it down and then bury the carbon [trunk] somehow. Anything less isn't permanently removing carbon from the atmosphere For example just growing a tree is no net carbon reduction - the tree dies naturally the carbon is released at some point.

elihu 5y ago
Yeah, that sounds more reasonable. Pay people for the quantity of carbon they sequestered at the point it's turned into biochar and buried (or whatever technology is used), and maybe have financial instruments set up so that investors can buy the rights to future carbon from the people growing the trees, so the growers don't have to wait fifty years to get paid. If there's a forest fire, the investors lose their investment, and that's just part of the built-in risk. On the micro-scale, I wonder if towns and cities could start incentivizing people to dispose of more yard waste. For instance, you get a rebate on your garbage bill based on how many hundreds of pounds of lawn clippings and branches you stuff in your yard waste bins each year (assuming that yard waste is processed in a way that sequesters the carbon, and people don't try to game the system by filling their bins with dirt or trash). You could also have something like a free service for people in rural areas to request a dumpster that they can fill with organic material and have hauled away as an alternative to just burning it.
sdenton4 5y ago
I see this point brought out often. Some counter points: a) Trees can live for hundreds of years. We're in the midst of transforming how we produce energy and improving energy efficiency all around... A good CO2 'battery' to smooth out the problem can still be very helpful. Think of it as a low-pass filter to help reduce a shock. b) Forests have a massive number of positive effects beside co2 sequestration, including local cooling and aiding the water cycle. A world with more forests is a healthier world. (See also: riding a bike instead of driving. It saves CO2, and has numerous health benefits.)
- slavik81 5y ago
  Even dead trees take decades to decay. It varies by climate, but a typical tree in the Boreal Forest might take a century to rot away.
  - motioncuty 5y ago
    The dead trees make for ground fuel in more arid forests. Does the decaying material of boreal trees make it into the air or is it captured by the funguses and microbes eating it?

elihu 5y ago

Yeah, that sounds more reasonable. Pay people for the quantity of carbon they sequestered at the point it's turned into biochar and buried (or whatever technology is used), and maybe have financial instruments set up so that investors can buy the rights to future carbon from the people growing the trees, so the growers don't have to wait fifty years to get paid. If there's a forest fire, the investors lose their investment, and that's just part of the built-in risk. On the micro-scale, I wonder if towns and cities could start incentivizing people to dispose of more yard waste. For instance, you get a rebate on your garbage bill based on how many hundreds of pounds of lawn clippings and branches you stuff in your yard waste bins each year (assuming that yard waste is processed in a way that sequesters the carbon, and people don't try to game the system by filling their bins with dirt or trash). You could also have something like a free service for people in rural areas to request a dumpster that they can fill with organic material and have hauled away as an alternative to just burning it.

sdenton4 5y ago

I see this point brought out often. Some counter points: a) Trees can live for hundreds of years. We're in the midst of transforming how we produce energy and improving energy efficiency all around... A good CO2 'battery' to smooth out the problem can still be very helpful. Think of it as a low-pass filter to help reduce a shock. b) Forests have a massive number of positive effects beside co2 sequestration, including local cooling and aiding the water cycle. A world with more forests is a healthier world. (See also: riding a bike instead of driving. It saves CO2, and has numerous health benefits.)

slavik81 5y ago
Even dead trees take decades to decay. It varies by climate, but a typical tree in the Boreal Forest might take a century to rot away.
- motioncuty 5y ago
  The dead trees make for ground fuel in more arid forests. Does the decaying material of boreal trees make it into the air or is it captured by the funguses and microbes eating it?