5 ms·

It seems indeed rather futile to plant trees for carbon sequestration. Depends on the exact situation, but simply put trees are often almost carbon neutral and

by stinos 4y ago

It seems indeed rather futile to plant trees for carbon sequestration. Depends on the exact situation, but simply put trees are often almost carbon neutral and at a fairly smale timescale (e.g. [1]) and even if they weren't we'd need a lot of them (e.g. [2]). To the point one starts to wonder whether these so-called 'climate trees' (a term commonly used by some groups in my area) isn't just a product of lobby groups and/or people who don't know a lot about biology or ecosystems. A tree is of course a perfect 'climate excuse': easy to plant a tree, easy to think you're doing something for the climate. Now, the part about needing a lot of them is also true for these bioreactors. Still doesn't seem super practical. Nor is the storage or use of all that captured carbon? I mean in theory this is great, but practically it's a bit hard to tell if this is doable technologically. On the other hand there are things which are (purely technically) easier to achieve and more efficient, like wetlands and peatlands (and that also goes for peat forrests, so yes trees) e.g. [3] The numbers are so huge that trying to make sure they don't degrade or aren't converted into farmland or sucked dry and trying to (re)create them by introducing or restoring wetlands to their original form, this seems like something which is actually worth it. I'm not saying it's the only thing to do, I'm aware such land isn't super popular nor practically useful, and maybe I'm missing something else, but it really looks like if you have the choice to either go plant trees somewhere or somehow try to protect peatland, the latter wins when it comes to sequestration. [1] https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/31440/1/gcb.15229.pdf https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/31440/1/gcb.15229.p... [2] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-... [3] https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-climate-change https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-cl...

quiet_cool 4y ago
[dead]
thinkcontext 4y ago
> It seems indeed rather futile to plant trees for carbon sequestration. Depends on the exact situation, but simply put trees are often almost carbon neutral and at a fairly smale timescale I'd say this is losing the forest for the trees. An individual tree doesn't matter, what matters is a durable ecosystem. Say a square kilometer of denuded farmland is converted to forest. Thousands of tons of carbon will remain in the plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms and soil as long as the forest stands though the individuals will die. It could be there 10 years or 10,000 years, depends on how long the ecosystem is maintained.
- stinos 4y ago
  > Say a square kilometer of denuded farmland is converted to forest. In principle I'd agree, but: again this really depends on soil type and history and surroundings and type of forrest. The forrest won't be bad, but depending on factors as far as sequestration goes (and biodiversity as well to some extent) it could actually be better to turn the farmland into a meadow. Those don't necessarily have to be wetlands to sequester more carbon over the course of years. Just like for every new square kilometer converted to whatever, it might actually be worth more to try and preserve one square kilometer of rainforrest instead of having it cut down.
- codesnik 4y ago
  interesting point, I've read somewhere that from biodiversity, and carbon sequestration viewpoint some forests (corniferous, like taiga) are much poorer than grass steppes. It was argued that mammoths were important because they were strong enough to fall down trees, making space for grass to grow.
newphonecartel 4y ago
Isnt it funny when you finally realize HN's had you on mute for months. ;)

by stinos 4y ago

quiet_cool 4y ago

[dead]

thinkcontext 4y ago

> It seems indeed rather futile to plant trees for carbon sequestration. Depends on the exact situation, but simply put trees are often almost carbon neutral and at a fairly smale timescale I'd say this is losing the forest for the trees. An individual tree doesn't matter, what matters is a durable ecosystem. Say a square kilometer of denuded farmland is converted to forest. Thousands of tons of carbon will remain in the plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms and soil as long as the forest stands though the individuals will die. It could be there 10 years or 10,000 years, depends on how long the ecosystem is maintained.

stinos 4y ago
> Say a square kilometer of denuded farmland is converted to forest. In principle I'd agree, but: again this really depends on soil type and history and surroundings and type of forrest. The forrest won't be bad, but depending on factors as far as sequestration goes (and biodiversity as well to some extent) it could actually be better to turn the farmland into a meadow. Those don't necessarily have to be wetlands to sequester more carbon over the course of years. Just like for every new square kilometer converted to whatever, it might actually be worth more to try and preserve one square kilometer of rainforrest instead of having it cut down.
codesnik 4y ago
interesting point, I've read somewhere that from biodiversity, and carbon sequestration viewpoint some forests (corniferous, like taiga) are much poorer than grass steppes. It was argued that mammoths were important because they were strong enough to fall down trees, making space for grass to grow.

newphonecartel 4y ago

Isnt it funny when you finally realize HN's had you on mute for months. ;)