4 ms·

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but over its life and decomposition, isn't a tree carbon neutral? While growing, trees basically absorb carbon, and when they de

by jimmar 15y ago

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but over its life and decomposition, isn't a tree carbon neutral? While growing, trees basically absorb carbon, and when they decay that carbon is released back into the air. Therefore, planting more trees will not reduce carbon in the long term.

jimworm 15y ago
Kinda, but: A tree can live for hundreds of years, which is long enough for many changes to take place. Not all trees that die decompose completely. Coal and oil are examples of long term sequestration. A lot of the carbon in coal and oil would still be buried if not for meddling humans.
makaio 15y ago
Yes, but while the trees are alive and before they have completely decomposed they are sequestering the carbon. It is more useful to consider the population of trees in this case. While the population of trees is higher, the amount of carbon trapped in trees is higher and therefore the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is lower. This effect would have ended when the population of trees declined to its pre-Columbian levels.
DavidAdams 15y ago
You're correct, but only if the tree's entire carbon store is released to the atmosphere, such as by being burned. Not all of the tree is able to decay and release its carbon. The portion of the organic matter that fell to the forest floor, was covered by other organic matter, stayed there for a long time and eventually becomes coal or oil. In other words, you can end up storing a lot of carbon in the soil. I suppose one good way to sequester carbon is to plant trees then cut them down at maturity and build durable buildings out of them.
- bh42222 15y ago
  I suppose one good way to sequester carbon is to plant trees then cut them down at maturity and build durable buildings out of them Or dump the trunks into any oxygen starved bog. Or ship them to the northern parts of the world and bury them in the shallow permafrost layer. Except both of those hold the risk of a sudden return of massive amounts of CO2 to the air due to some unforeseen (fire!) event. The most low risk is probably to turn them into charcoal, mix that charcoal into the soil they came from and plant new trees there. As long as some of the carbon is still in the soil by the time you repeat the process, you have a net gain of CO2 sequestration.

by jimmar 15y ago

jimworm 15y ago

Kinda, but: A tree can live for hundreds of years, which is long enough for many changes to take place. Not all trees that die decompose completely. Coal and oil are examples of long term sequestration. A lot of the carbon in coal and oil would still be buried if not for meddling humans.

makaio 15y ago

Yes, but while the trees are alive and before they have completely decomposed they are sequestering the carbon. It is more useful to consider the population of trees in this case. While the population of trees is higher, the amount of carbon trapped in trees is higher and therefore the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is lower. This effect would have ended when the population of trees declined to its pre-Columbian levels.

DavidAdams 15y ago

You're correct, but only if the tree's entire carbon store is released to the atmosphere, such as by being burned. Not all of the tree is able to decay and release its carbon. The portion of the organic matter that fell to the forest floor, was covered by other organic matter, stayed there for a long time and eventually becomes coal or oil. In other words, you can end up storing a lot of carbon in the soil. I suppose one good way to sequester carbon is to plant trees then cut them down at maturity and build durable buildings out of them.

bh42222 15y ago
I suppose one good way to sequester carbon is to plant trees then cut them down at maturity and build durable buildings out of them Or dump the trunks into any oxygen starved bog. Or ship them to the northern parts of the world and bury them in the shallow permafrost layer. Except both of those hold the risk of a sudden return of massive amounts of CO2 to the air due to some unforeseen (fire!) event. The most low risk is probably to turn them into charcoal, mix that charcoal into the soil they came from and plant new trees there. As long as some of the carbon is still in the soil by the time you repeat the process, you have a net gain of CO2 sequestration.