3 ms·
Yes, but also no. If we were still burning fuels derived entirely from plants that we re-grew, it would be a closed loop. But we're digging oil out of the groun
by arcticbull 3y ago
Yes, but also no. If we were still burning fuels derived entirely from plants that we re-grew, it would be a closed loop. But we're digging oil out of the ground and burning it, and also not planting trees, so we're kinda burning the candle at both ends there.
You couldn't plant enough trees to make up for digging coal and oil out of the ground and burning it -- especially since mature forests aren't just carbon sinks. They reach an equilibrium where they're carbon neutral as the decay of wood and leaves releases carbon into the atmosphere.
Don't get me wrong, trees are good, and reforestation helps, but it's more of an umbrella in a hurricane type thing. You'd have to plant trees, chop them down then sequester them geologically somehow to actually make a carbon sink.
[1] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-trees https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-t...
- londons_explore 3y ago> chop them down then sequester them geologically somehow to actually make a carbon sink. And I suspect if you did that at vast scales, you'd soon start running out of other elements like phosphorus that trees need to grow.
- bluGill 3y agoCharcoal doesn't really decay and leaves the soil fertile. So it seems like it should work. Making charcoal is a lot of pollution though.
- londons_explore 3y ago> Charcoal doesn't really decay I've often wondered why not... Charcoal must have existed for millennia, and is effectively 'free energy', yet no bacteria have learned how to break it down.