With all the talk about reducing carbon emissions no solutions or pending technologies talk about trying to develop a tree that could grow rapidly that could be used capture the carbon in itself. I think if we crossed like a dandelion with a tree like a cottonwood they would grow quicker and possibly grow in harsher soils. Genetically alter a argan tree so it grows taller or cross them with quaking aspens so they and spread about more in sandy regions allowing more plants to possibly take root and accelerate Africa’s attempt to create a green wall to keep the Sahara from advancing south.
In: 0
Tree growth rate is not really the problem. The amount of land kept as forest, or as undisturbed forest, is more of an issue.
We mainly need to plant trees when a forest has been harvested. If it’s been harvested once, it will probably be harvested again. If the trees grow twice as fast, the harvests will occur twice as often. This could be a benefit to the land owner and the forest product companies, but it doesn’t increase the average amount of carbon held in that forest.
If future harvesting of the forest is somehow prevented from happening, the growth rate of the trees is still not that important. If it takes 100 or 200 years for the trees to capture the carbon, it’s not that big a difference. Climate change is a looooooong term problem. It will most likely be with future generations for thousands of years.
Latest Answers