3 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 an
by 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 agointeresting 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.