5 ms·

Planting a tree is carbon neutral if you do nothing to sequester the carbon. It's negative in the short term, but neutral over the life of the tree (more or les

• wizofaus 4y ago
  Trees live long enough that that "short term" can still be 100s of years, and buying ourselves 100 years is probably the best we can hope for anyway at this point. And trees are capable of automatically spawning new trees, so a self-sustaining growing tree population should surely count as carbon negative...
  • drjasonharrison 4y ago
    ...and then the drought, followed by the fire... The amount of carbon in the atmosphere, that used to be underground in coal, oil, and gas. More than 170 gigatons. (approximately, this is just the 40% higher concentration than historical high point, based on 412 ppm co2 in atmosphere vs 300 ppm historical high point, back of the envelope). This seems like a lot of land, a lot of trees, and would have to include harvesting and storing the trees after 100 years.
    • wizofaus 4y ago
      Well I wasn't proposing we could solve climate change just planting trees (though I've seen that exact proposition made before). Genetically engineered trees that have a much faster CO2 processing time perhaps...
    • sitkack 4y ago
      If something spills, do you soak it up with a sponge?
  • washbrain 4y ago
    As someone who manages hundreds of acres of forest - most trees won't live that long because we'll harvest them or they'll die to disease and wildfire. Reforesting an area would be carbon negative, and eventually the first will saturate. It's much much more carbon negative to produce biochar, biotar, or mass timber buildings.
    • wizofaus 4y ago
      Fair enough, good to know. Hadn't heard of bio-tar before.