3 ms·
And then bury it so it doesn't rot and rerelease the CO2. Otherwise you're just moving the problem to the future.
by kaybe 12y ago
And then bury it so it doesn't rot and rerelease the CO2. Otherwise you're just moving the problem to the future.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- zitterbewegung 12y agoUnless the tree burns down you realize that it incorporates the CO2 in its structure right?
- wongarsu 12y agoMost trees die at a certain age (or due to other factors). By default this leads to the tree falling over and starting to decompose, a process which releases most of the CO2 formerly stored in that tree. The obvious solution is to plant an entire forest to ensure that new trees grow to replace old trees.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- avar 12y agoIf you kept planting and burying trees you'd be taking oxygen out of the atmosphere in addition to carbon, which would cause other problems.
- kaybe 12y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis n CO2 + n H2O + photons → (CH2O)n + n O2 carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen Even if the single oxygen per carbon stayed buried, we'd lose a maximum of 400ppm[1] of oxygen, of currently 20.95 % volume of oxygen. That does not even affect the last digit of that rounded number, and the number is normally not given with more digits because it changes with the season and stuff. No carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would probably be really bad for further tree growth (among other things), so it is naturally limited. [1]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo