4 ms·

We have machines for doing this. They're called trees. Let's stop cutting them down.

• rthomas6 12y ago
  Trees are carbon neutral or even net emitters of carbon once they're mature, so a better solution would be to frequently cut them down and then replant them. Edit: I am wrong in the case of old growth forests. After a bit of googling, they are still net carbon capturers. But not as much as young forests.
  • maxerickson 12y ago
    It's vaguely interesting that, in the U.S., the entities best equipped to do this are the federal and state governments. Private landowners tend to manage their forests for profit and don't have any cantankerous recreational users to mollify before they arrange a sale (well, other than themselves).
  • readerrrr 12y ago
    They are? How? My perspective is: most of the mass of the three comes from the air, and trees are weighed in tonnes. When they die the carbon goes in the ground( as long as they aren't burned ).
    • DennisP 12y ago
      When they rot the carbon mostly goes back in the air.
    • rthomas6 12y ago
      I was wrong in that old forests are net carbon emitters. They are still net carbon absorbers, but not as much as young forests. The reason for this is that trees also respirate, taking in O2 and emitting CO2, and this balances the CO2 absorption of photosynthesis. Old forests are still net carbon absorbers because trees have to repair themselves, and that matter still comes from the air. But intuitively, the amount of carbon absorption from maintenance vs. the amount from growing larger is much less for the former.
• jdmichal 12y ago
  We don't really have to stop cutting them down. In fact, not having lumber would have a far, far bigger effect on the economy than creating an entirely new technology to scrub CO2. We do, however, need to plant more trees when we do cut them down.