[dimitar]

This is true in the short to medium run.

Trees and plants are net consumers of CO2 when they grow, but become neutral when they reach maturity, so they are more of a carbon buffer. The buffer can be freed when they burn or rot, both of which happen naturally.

The best way to permanently take away CO2 from the atmosphere is to cut off the trees and somehow store them where the CO2 cannot escape (and to free space for new trees to grow). Some of the carbon from dead plants is stored in the soils, but this takes a lot of time to do.

In the long run biofuels + carbon capture can be carbon negative.

[nuodag]

You can store the trees in houses and other construction where concrete is used now, emitting lots of CO2 in its production.

[drran]

We already have shortage of building-grade wood, because it needs to be grown for 60-90 years, while today's wood is cut at 30. Younger wood is softer, attracts bugs, rots easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis

[totalZero]

Interesting. Is this true for hardwoods as well, or just for pine and other softwoods?

[ajit_singh]

Wow! so much scientific conversation and not one thought about gazillion of animals who live in those trees. Did you guys know earth was doing pretty fine with just trees and animals before all these tech, or even their talk, appeared in the scene.

[bnegreve]

> The best way to permanently take away CO2 from the atmosphere is to cut off the trees and somehow store them where the CO2 cannot escape

I really don't understand this logic. The oil industry spends billions every year to extract oil (= fossilized biomass) buried deep underground, because burning biomass gives you cheap energy.

If you cut down and store enough trees to compensate for the current CO2 emissions, you will have access to an immense volume of biomass, much easier to "extract" than oil is. What do you think is going to happen with this biomass? People are going to burn it to make cheap energy again..

Actually, why would you even go through the trouble of cutting down the trees in the first place? You could just, not extract the oil and end up with the exact same amount of energy you will have at the end of this complex process.

[dimitar]

One way to to store that carbon by burning the trees is and storing the CO2 underground - it will be costly to extract and worthless to do so and you will get some energy out of it.

[bnegreve]

To burn the trees, you need oxygen.

You want to use oxygen from the atmosphere, and bury it underground?

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

Doesn't burying the trees drastically increase the length of capture? Then it's a matter of cost and resource optimisation. I'd do the job of planting, cutting, trucking, and burying trees with pride.