4 ms·

Alternately, let new trees grow to take the place of trees that die. This is yet another stock/flow issue, where the sequestered carbon is a function of the st

by rsj_hn 5y ago

Alternately, let new trees grow to take the place of trees that die. This is yet another stock/flow issue, where the sequestered carbon is a function of the stock of living trees, which itself grows with the delta of trees added - trees removed. You don't need to manually manage the lifecycle of each individual plant, just focus on the increasing the living stock, or rather, letting the living stock increase all on its own in response to more carbon in the air. So this is about land zoning and habitat protection, not building little coffins for individual trees. Let forests grow and protect their habitat, they will grow all on their own if allowed to. FYI we've added 60 million hectares of forests since 2000. That process can be even expanded.

antognini 5y ago
Yes, this is true. If you can create a stable forest then that becomes a carbon sink for the lifetime of the forest. It is still hard to see how this is going to make a big difference. The biomass of the Amazon rainforest is ~120 gigatons. Annual CO2 emissions are right now around 30-36 gigatons. Growing a new forest the size of the Amazon would make up for about four years of emissions. Of course that doesn't mean that reforestation isn't valuable. It certainly is. But even enormous growth of forest wouldn't make a big dent in atmospheric CO2 levels. The carbon came from underground and almost all of it will have to return underground to get CO2 levels down.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Those are valid points. But you don't need to add the square footage of the Amazon, what also happens is that forests become more dense per square foot. But not only forests, grassland sequesters about 343 gigatons and that rate has been growing at half a gigaton/year as the grassland gets taller/denser due to increasing carbon in the air. Biomass in topsoil itself sequestors twice as much carbon as biomass in trees, but this covers only 3% of the earth's surface. This paper has a nice overview[1] [1] https://innovate-eco.com/storing-carbon-in-plants-and-trees-how-much-co2-is-absorbed-by-trees-and-other-vegetation/ https://innovate-eco.com/storing-carbon-in-plants-and-trees-...

by rsj_hn 5y ago

antognini 5y ago

Yes, this is true. If you can create a stable forest then that becomes a carbon sink for the lifetime of the forest. It is still hard to see how this is going to make a big difference. The biomass of the Amazon rainforest is ~120 gigatons. Annual CO2 emissions are right now around 30-36 gigatons. Growing a new forest the size of the Amazon would make up for about four years of emissions. Of course that doesn't mean that reforestation isn't valuable. It certainly is. But even enormous growth of forest wouldn't make a big dent in atmospheric CO2 levels. The carbon came from underground and almost all of it will have to return underground to get CO2 levels down.

rsj_hn 5y ago
Those are valid points. But you don't need to add the square footage of the Amazon, what also happens is that forests become more dense per square foot. But not only forests, grassland sequesters about 343 gigatons and that rate has been growing at half a gigaton/year as the grassland gets taller/denser due to increasing carbon in the air. Biomass in topsoil itself sequestors twice as much carbon as biomass in trees, but this covers only 3% of the earth's surface. This paper has a nice overview[1] [1] https://innovate-eco.com/storing-carbon-in-plants-and-trees-how-much-co2-is-absorbed-by-trees-and-other-vegetation/ https://innovate-eco.com/storing-carbon-in-plants-and-trees-...