[endymi0n]

I think the direction is good, the conclusion not so much. Nobody has the use or space for a couple hundred timber houses per person on the planet to cope with the current emissions.

But if executed correctly (Drones sowing and harvesting millions of tons of fast-growing wood / switchgrass per year) and then correcty getting rid of it so it can't decompose (i.e. probably drying and/or sterilizing it), it might solve carbon capture.

That being said, it all involves lots of space, mineral fertilizer and moving parts — on top it might be disastrous to any animal ecosystem trying to get hold in those woods. I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off with stationary carbon capture stations eventually.

[Gravityloss]

It's only going to be one part of the puzzle, at best. But replacing concrete, steel and aluminum, all causing large CO2 emissions while the raw material is created, should be a benefit.

Anyway, you can also store a lot of the carbon just as forest, though it's more of a "one time" use of the land. Trees can also live for hundreds of years. And the soil can also store carbon. At least over here, large trees can often survive forest fires too.

But it requires changed policy, it's not a technological problem.

[chiefalchemist]

True. But there are plenty of times currently where plastic could be replaced with wood. From broomstick handles to sporks, we use a lot of plastic that doesn't have to be plastic.

Cost is a consideration. But plastic over the long term has a cost, that isn't factored into the manufacturing+sales cost.

I'm not suggesting this would solve the problem. That single magic bullet doesn't exist. But it can't hurt either.

[xenonite]

Well, problematic are mainly dead trees. Thus, I do not see why quickly growing and dying wood should be best. Instead I see better suitability of trees that can become very old, hence avoiding dead wood which turns to CO2. Also, ever greens avoid generating dead leaves.