• UristMcHolland@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would rather them just spend 1.2 billion planting trees. Just plant a shitload of trees, that’s it.

    • qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How efficient at sinking carbon are trees? As in, once the tree decomposes, the carbon gets largely released back into the air.

      But yeah, “shitload of trees” + “some way of storing them at end of life that doesn’t result in carbon back into the atmosphere” seems like a pretty solid plan.

      • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trees are some of the best carbon sinks there are. Far greater than any artificial ones we have so far. Trees last a long time, and when they die you can just plant more.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The real issue is that trees take a long time to get to their maximum sink potential, and require a LOT of water, nutrients, and excellent soil to get there.