[smallerfish]

Actually cutting them down is fine as long as we re-plant and slow down the decomp of the wood (by, e.g., using it in manufacturing or building.) Bamboo's also a good candidate for this cycle. Locking up atmospheric carbon in material that's going to be around for dozens or hundreds of years is a good thing.

[jacquesm]

Bamboo is interesting, both for strength-to-weight ratio and speed of growth. Is there a side-by-side comparison on how well it performs in this respect relative to other tree species?

[_Microft]

We do not need to find a use for the wood if we were determined that this is our carbon sequestration method and that it would be paid for by the public, i.e. that no otherwise viable business model is needed. We could put it into mines that we digged the carbon out from before - consider it paying back the carbon loans we took in the past. Or maybe use other mines for that: cavities of salt mines can be truly gigantic for example which might help with handling the material.

Edit: I did some calculations and to sequester 1 Gt of carbon we would need to bury approximately 1.7 km^3 of (fresh) oak wood. That‘s a lot, especially since emissions were over 30Gt/a in 2020.