• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      97 months ago

      We’re releasing a lot of carbon right now.

      The neat thing is when a tree dies and starts releasing it again, the trees around it absorb it, and here’s the best part: They plant new trees all on their own.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Doesn’t help through forest fires

        But the tree angle is mostly used by polluters to say they are carbon neutral because they planted some trees somewhere so they can continue polluting

        Not saying you are one of them, just to not put so much stock in it when we should be aiming for elimination

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          37 months ago

          I mean I’ll agree 100% that carbon credits or whatever they’re called now is bollocks.

          But more trees can’t hurt. And they’re nicer than endless fields of corn.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
      link
      English
      47 months ago

      Redwoods live thousands of years. I’m cool with punting this problem 3000 years into the future.

      • @mojo_raisin
        link
        English
        4
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        While trees are great and you have a point, we can’t just put trees everywhere without consideration of native species. Much of the U.S. for example is prairie/grasslands that doesn’t have a high tree density and the carbon is cycled much faster. Also of concern (not my concern but somebody’s) is the property value of land used for trees instead of profit.

        A acre of hemp regrown every year and a biochar retort could sequester far more carbon than an acre of forest over a given period and can be done on “wastelands”. Biochar IMHO is the only carbon sequestration method that actually makes sense.