I mean, that’s the mechanism by which carbon is removed. It goes into tree, tree dies or gets cut down taking all the solidified carbon with it, new tree gets planted in its place to repeat the cycle. In fact, the fastest way to scrub carbon with the practice is to farm trees, assuming you do it sustainably.
Yes. Growing a tree from sapling to a giant trunk removes significantly more carbon from the atmosphere than an existing trunk sitting there at mass, unable to store much more carbon.
And yes, that’s why I clarified that new trees would need to be planted, right on the money.
Slash emissions by using the dead bodies of the source that removes carbon?
I mean, that’s the mechanism by which carbon is removed. It goes into tree, tree dies or gets cut down taking all the solidified carbon with it, new tree gets planted in its place to repeat the cycle. In fact, the fastest way to scrub carbon with the practice is to farm trees, assuming you do it sustainably.
You mean sequestered, not removed. It’s one fire away from being back in circulation.
Well, don’t set any data centers on fire.
But what if I really want to :(
Noted for the future.
So is every tree
Do you propose some alchemy that transforms carbon to another element? Remove carbon from the atmosphere and stop putting more up in there.
And gives some energy (and building material) in the process? Yeah, it’s just kinda hard.
So the best thing you can do with a tree, is to cut it down and use it as materials, if we want to release as little CO2 as possible?
And ofc this depends on new trees being planted in its stead.
Hence farming trees…
Yes. Growing a tree from sapling to a giant trunk removes significantly more carbon from the atmosphere than an existing trunk sitting there at mass, unable to store much more carbon.
And yes, that’s why I clarified that new trees would need to be planted, right on the money.
Trees are carbon neutral. They pull the carbon out and sequester it in themselves. When they rot or burn, the carbon is returned.