You need actual biomass to physically exist, only then is carbon actually bound. Trees have much denser cellulose and stay around for longer. Ultimately, though, the answer is both. And bushes and shrubs. Just build up a whole forest. The denser you can make it, the better.
I wonder how carbon-negatove a bamboo forest would be if you harvest it, turn it into charcoal (or bury in a bog or something?), rinse and repeat. Afaik charcoal sinks carbon fairly effectively (???), unless you burn it obviously.
You keep acting like trees are harming humans. Personally I haven’t been harmed by a tree before and I’m happy everytime I see one. They’re much nicer to look at, less noisy, require less roads and provide more shade than cars. Also they don’t burn fossils.
Following your logic, since trees are carbon neutral and presumably only create problems for future generations, we’d have to go and remove all trees that exist on Earth. Sounds like something the woodcutting lobby would say.
I think they’re saying that since there’s are neutral, focusing on them to fix or climate is a distraction from what we really need to do.
Namely stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
We’re still more forest, but it’s going to be hard to get that off the climate is too far gone to safely sustain one, like how so much of Canada is burning at the moment (and does now pretty much every summer).
Not to mention unless we curb populations, that land will be needed for housing or food eventually. You can only go up so efficiently, and can’t rely on natural lighting with vertical farming.
Literally from people selling you it though lol. It’s possible, but I think the greater insect life more diverse lawns facilitate is a better net overall for the world.
You need actual biomass to physically exist, only then is carbon actually bound. Trees have much denser cellulose and stay around for longer. Ultimately, though, the answer is both. And bushes and shrubs. Just build up a whole forest. The denser you can make it, the better.
Almost every plant is carbon neutral in its life cycle, it’s a great sentiment, but it doesn’t work in the end.
I wonder how carbon-negatove a bamboo forest would be if you harvest it, turn it into charcoal (or bury in a bog or something?), rinse and repeat. Afaik charcoal sinks carbon fairly effectively (???), unless you burn it obviously.
Just make it your kids problem, sure that’s worked so far.
You keep acting like trees are harming humans. Personally I haven’t been harmed by a tree before and I’m happy everytime I see one. They’re much nicer to look at, less noisy, require less roads and provide more shade than cars. Also they don’t burn fossils.
Following your logic, since trees are carbon neutral and presumably only create problems for future generations, we’d have to go and remove all trees that exist on Earth. Sounds like something the woodcutting lobby would say.
I think they’re saying that since there’s are neutral, focusing on them to fix or climate is a distraction from what we really need to do.
Namely stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
We’re still more forest, but it’s going to be hard to get that off the climate is too far gone to safely sustain one, like how so much of Canada is burning at the moment (and does now pretty much every summer).
Not to mention unless we curb populations, that land will be needed for housing or food eventually. You can only go up so efficiently, and can’t rely on natural lighting with vertical farming.
They’re already doing that with trees. Just bury the wood deep enough it doesn’t decompose. Boom. You’ve locked up carbon for millennia.
deleted by creator
Trees burn though. When grass burns it grows back in a heartbeat because it’s biomass is underground
This is what I was going by. I’ve heard similar said before.
Literally from people selling you it though lol. It’s possible, but I think the greater insect life more diverse lawns facilitate is a better net overall for the world.
Grass lands are not lawns.
Ok good point.
And peat bogs!