[trickstra]

Yes, but not only plant them. You also need to keep them and then you can never let them decompose or burn. Or you have to keep planting a new tree whenever one dies. Basically the "Plant 1T trees" means "increase the total number of trees by 1T and keep it that way". Also we would need to increase that number every time we increase our greenhouse gas emissions. No matter how "green" that sounds, that's just unsustainable. We still need to decrease our fossil fuel extraction to basically zero. And we need some way to put that sequestered CO2 back into ground or somewhere where it doesn't get back to atmosphere.

Just planting 1T seedlings, collecting subsidies, and congratulating each other how we sequestered that calculated amount of CO2 is a totally fake activity.

We really need to do this one right.

[jacques_chester]

Yes, though as an interim measure it's a start. A very large stock of trees can renew itself, so while individual trees return most or all of the carbon they capture, the stock of all trees becomes a stable stock of carbon sequestered from the atmosphere.

That doesn't solve the problem of increasing CO2 emissions, but it blunts the trajectory and with any luck prevents some of the more destructive potential positive feedback loops from winding up.

[fulafel]

If the trees are used for wood or paper production, replanting logged trees is economically a no brainer.

[trickstra]

Yes, but then you still have the same problem when you discard that paper or wood product. It either decomposes or burns, which releases the stored carbon, and you have to catch it again with another fully grown tree.

What I'm saying is that yes, we should plant more trees, but it must not be just about "planting", like this article and many others are trying to portray. Otherwise it will be all for nothing. And we still have to do the other two parts - lowering our overall energy demand and getting off of fossil fuels. We have to do all three.