This article is frustrating for me. Especially his take on trees. The article states the target goal/amount of trees planted would only reduce carbon 6%. Ok, but, it will reduce temperature. I live in WV near a state forest. It is typically 7°-15° F cooler at my house than in town. Additionally, the sun in the summer doesn’t even hit my house until noon-ish, which significantly reduces my air conditioner consumption.
I chose to share this mostly for awareness. I am not especially fond of his perspective.
Trees remove CO2 then die and release it back.
We can’t grow back forests like they were at any relevant speed to even ‘make a dent’ in CO2 emissions.
The only way to stop is to end coal, oil and gas oxidation to CO2. All other things are misdirection, at best.
Exactly. The first thing we need to do is stop extracting extra carbon from the ground.
Then we literally need to start reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, probably by literally growing trees, cutting them down and them straight up burying them deep underground.
Or stuff like prairie restoration since prairie grasses are WAY better at actually sequestering carbon into their roots than trees
Probably easier to sink them in the deep ocean. Though most trees being less dense than water might make that difficult as well.
There’s always a problem with grammar and pronouns. I am not, and likely you aren’t, working to extract carbon on a massive scale. Industries are. And these industries got elect officials in their pockets. And even if they’d crash, some Arab oil princes wouldn’t wanna lose all their assets.
You are absolutely correct. If we want to stop global climate change, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.
And there are so many other benefits to the environment of growing more trees - especially native species - that anybody who says growing trees is useless is just not paying attention.
And and trees are made of CO2 and release it when they’re burned or decay, which makes them, quite literally, carbon neutral. In terms of fuel and building material and so forth wood may not be perfect but it’s better than a lot of nonrenewable alternatives.
Yeah, but ecological damage isn’t about CO2. It’s about global ecosystem collapse. Reforestation helps stopping damage to local wildlife, keep bees alive, etc. If we focus only on CO2 we run the risk of falling into technocratic strategies of minimaxing it’s mitigation. All that while ignoring what we are trying to preserve in the first place.
Trees also help lowering local temperature, and a small but significant part of that carbon will be absorbed by fungi and stored bellow the Earth. And with diversity, they can provide resources for communities such as fruits, teas, and other good stuff.