Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cyber_Dan t1_j91am1m wrote

Planting more trees/bushes/grass in densely populated areas sounds like would do the same thing and have the added benefit of shade, increased oxygen and air quality.

125

Mickey-the-Luxray t1_j91y6nb wrote

You... You can do both. You can do both those things together.

184

squanchingonreddit t1_j92aoj7 wrote

That will rot eventually and re-release the CO² this is sequestration of carbon over the long term.

15

EnkiduOdinson t1_j954mw3 wrote

Build houses out of them and plant more trees in their stead. Rinse and repeat. According to climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber we have to build 2 billion residential spaces (be it houses or flats) from wood to get CO2 levels down to where they should be

3

CompromisedCEO t1_j92a6ix wrote

That's not as easy as it sounds.

Significance work is needed for even 1 tree to survive in a dense urban environment. You can't just stick them in the ground because they won't survive.

9

[deleted] t1_j92ew0x wrote

Nah the amount of vegetation required would be way more than could fit to do anything significant. Plants don't use that much CO2, and I don't think CO2 levels change the structural properties of the plants, it just accelerates growth rate in general.

9

fleebleganger t1_j92uo06 wrote

A mature oak tree weighs somewhere around 2,000 tons.

The average American generates 16 tons of carbon a year. That’s 125 years of emissions covered.

So each tree does quite a bit

7

[deleted] t1_j92zbbe wrote

Most of that weight is not carbon though, it's mostly water. And I don't know how you think you're going to get mature oak trees in urban densely populated areas anytime soon.

8

jackzander t1_j94r9bs wrote

A mature oak tree does not weigh 4,000,000 pounds.

You fucked up some math.

1

bernyzilla t1_j96s0nq wrote

Thank you. 2,000 tones is an insane amount. A quick Google search puts the weight closer to 20,000 pounds or ten tons.

Which will dramatically change the calculus for carbon sequestration. Also remember that this only works for new trees, and that mature forests release as much carbon as they absorb.

Still, I am all for planning as much trees as we can possibly get away with. Climate change is an emergency and we should be doing everything possible to mitigate it.

2

danielravennest t1_j97fst3 wrote

Within reason, the individual tree weight doesn't matter. A "closed canopy" is when you look up in a forest and can't see any sky, just leaves and branches. That means all the available sunlight is being used by leaves.

So for a given soil and climate, a closed canopy maximizes the CO2 capture in tons per acre/hectare. If you want to produce durable wood products and store the carbon, you generally don't want a lot of little skinny trees. You want the trunks to be big enough to get useful pieces out of it.

1

iinavpov t1_j95aho0 wrote

More like 4 tonnes.

Also takes a century to grow.

1

danielravennest t1_j97e8rr wrote

That's a completely wrong number. An 80 foot red oak grown in a forest is about 10 tons. That assumes it is 2 feet in diameter at the base.

Source: former tree farmer, and now woodworker "from the tree". That means I harvest a tree, get it cut into lumber, and dry it. I know how much those logs weigh.

The biggest log I ever dealt with was a 3 feet in diameter x 20 ft long oak, which was 5 tons. That was a yard oak, rather than a forest oak. Lack of competition allowed big side branches and therefore a fat trunk.

A freshly cut southern red oak is about 42 pounds per cubic foot oven dry weight, and an equal amount of water when freshly cut. "Dried" wood contains 6-14% moisture in addition to the dry weight. Wood is porous, and exchanges moisture with air that has any humidity in it. So in practice the weight in a finished product is about 46 pounds per cubic foot.

1

DigiTrailz t1_j948qcu wrote

Its not like once one new idea is made the other is shot, dumped in the ocean, and said to have "gone on life finding journey". You can two ideas and do them together or even independently.

4

alizenweed t1_j91rt7l wrote

Tress die and then decompose. CO2 goes back to atmosphere.

−19

DrSmirnoffe t1_j91ty5b wrote

But do you know what they also do?

They spread their seeds and make more trees. Those trees then soak up more CO2, which goes into making more wood and tree-seeds. Gee, it's almost like a cycle! A CARBON cycle!

15

sillypicture t1_j924ogg wrote

Reddit needs to remember that microbes in the ocean store several orders of magnitude more carbon and also generate that much more oxygen than all the trees.

9

ExtantPlant t1_j91yy46 wrote

You're on the wrong sub to be posting that nonsense. First of all, the root system of a tree is usually about as big as the tree is above ground. The carbon stored there should mostly remain in the soil. Second, "used in construction" would store that carbon semi-permanently. Third, even if they were left to decompose, that's not how the decomposition process works at all.

14

squanchingonreddit t1_j92axo6 wrote

As someone with a degree in forestry, you're right. Sorry they're down dootin.

2