4 ms·

I read that reforesting large areas would help reduce the CO2, which makes sense. Is that considered a viable plan these days? (At first glance it seems a less

I read that reforesting large areas would help reduce the CO2, which makes sense. Is that considered a viable plan these days? (At first glance it seems a less risky strategy than blocking out the sun with a load of space bubbles.

jpindar 4y ago
It would help, but maybe not enough. Humanity isn't the only reason the planet isn't covered in trees, they just don't grow in many places such as deserts, mountaintops, etc.
Skunkleton 4y ago
Correct me if I am wrong here: trees are part of the regular carbon cycle. They don’t live very long on a geological scale, and when they die their carbon is repurposed. The big issue is that we are taking a ton of carbon that was effectively sequestered and releasing it into the atmosphere. There is no known biological mechanism to resequester that volume of carbon.
dredmorbius 4y ago
Forestry is amongst the land-use mitigations which are discussed in the IPCC AR6 WG III report. See page 84 of the Technical Summary, "TS. 5.6 Agriculture, forestry and other land uses, and food systems" https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_... Keep in mind that net emissions is the concern, and simply stopping ongoing deforestation would contribute much. The total Agriculture, Forestry, and other Land Uses (AFOLU) sector accounts 13--21% of present greenhouse gas emissions (2010--2019), and could absorb about 1/3 of total human emissions. So yes, forestry, among other land uses is a partial and probably necessary but not sufficient mitigation.
lalaland1125 4y ago
Reforesting doesn't take that much CO2 out of the system long-term.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Short-term is good if we are also doing something about long-term. If by the time the new trees fall and rot, we have stopped burning coal, then they won't matter.

jpindar 4y ago

It would help, but maybe not enough. Humanity isn't the only reason the planet isn't covered in trees, they just don't grow in many places such as deserts, mountaintops, etc.

Skunkleton 4y ago

Correct me if I am wrong here: trees are part of the regular carbon cycle. They don’t live very long on a geological scale, and when they die their carbon is repurposed. The big issue is that we are taking a ton of carbon that was effectively sequestered and releasing it into the atmosphere. There is no known biological mechanism to resequester that volume of carbon.

dredmorbius 4y ago

Forestry is amongst the land-use mitigations which are discussed in the IPCC AR6 WG III report. See page 84 of the Technical Summary, "TS. 5.6 Agriculture, forestry and other land uses, and food systems" https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_... Keep in mind that net emissions is the concern, and simply stopping ongoing deforestation would contribute much. The total Agriculture, Forestry, and other Land Uses (AFOLU) sector accounts 13--21% of present greenhouse gas emissions (2010--2019), and could absorb about 1/3 of total human emissions. So yes, forestry, among other land uses is a partial and probably necessary but not sufficient mitigation.

lalaland1125 4y ago

Reforesting doesn't take that much CO2 out of the system long-term.

ncmncm 4y ago
Short-term is good if we are also doing something about long-term. If by the time the new trees fall and rot, we have stopped burning coal, then they won't matter.