I can’t wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!
I can’t wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!
The carbon in that wood is only sequestered until it rots or burns. It may be a hundred years, it may be a thousand years, but it has not been removed from the carbon cycle. At best, you’re kicking the can down the road.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
This is one case where kicking the can down the road is the best option we really have, as long as we don’t stop working on the tech we need down said road. In a few hundred years we’ll probably have far better solutions, or a radically different lifestyle and technology than now. But we don’t have those now. And right now every little bit will help.
Keep in mind we’ve only been industrial for what, a couple hundred years? Sequestering for equivalent to the entire span we’ve been causing the problem seems like a pretty good start.
I want to be clear, nowhere have I said that we shouldn’t be planting trees. Having a deeper reservoir for the carbon will buy time to develop more efficient and permanent sequestration technologies. It’s just that a lot of people in these comments seem to think that we shouldn’t even pursue sequestration tech because trees exist, despite the fact that they fill different roles in the solution to anthropogenic climate change