|
It works the same for all plants: they consume CO2 to grow and release it back when they die. The reason most of the effort is focused on trees is precisely because they store CO2 the longest and can be grown pretty much anywhere. If speed is what you're after, bamboo grows very quickly, consuming high levels of CO2, but also doesn't live that long, undoing that. Wetlands filled with peat are the absolute kings of storing CO2 (~3% of Earth's surface stores ~1/3 of CO2), but you can't artificially make them anywhere, and it would take hundreds of years before it becomes effective. Seaweed like kelp are also very effective at storing a lot of CO2, but organisms that feed on them cancel out the benefits. So, a properly designed[0] forest still wins. What works better than planting is conserving, as in not draining swamplands, cutting down forests, and so on. Not because it's something we can't recreate, but because the sheer amount of time it took for such ecosystems to develop makes it much more effective than anything we'd plant today. Which brings me to the best solution: not building anything on an empty patch of land, but to build around the existing ecosystems, essentially extending them. The ends of a forest aren't anywhere near as productive as their middle, so by extending the space around them you're extending that most productive middle. Another very effective method is re-connecting forests via corridors (tunneling roads or building wildlife crossings), allowing animals to roam between the two parts, which makes both parts healthier. In summary, building trees is absolutely the best, but it's not just about planting them, it's about picking the best spots to do so. [0] Not planting all the trees at once, the diversity of the trees planted, proper spacing, re-introducing animals so that the space below the trees thrives with vegetation, etc. |