This topic really surged after the #TeamTrees movement, but has fallen off pretty significantly. I’ve heard a lot about how reforestation just doesn’t have the carbon capture capability required for it to be sustainable in the long run, but I would think that enough trees would offset at least SOME greenhouse emissions.
In: Planetary Science
Trees are great, and they do indeed capture carbon, but they can only capture a little carbon dioxide per unit of land and per unit of time, and frankly we pollute WAY too fast for it to be viable. When trees die, they also rot, which re-releases some of that captured carbon; it’s only when trees are dead and buried that the carbon is gone for good.
Most of Earth’s carbon capture actually happens with ocean algae and phytoplankton. Like trees, they capture carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, but when they die they sink WAY down to the ocean floor, trapping the carbon far more efficiently than on land. Combined with the sheer surface area of the ocean, and it amounts to way more than the trees could ever deal with.
But that’s not to say we shouldn’t replant trees. Trees have other benefits beyond carbon capture, such as providing habitat for wildlife, controlling erosion, and providing shade. You can use trees in urban environments to help keep buildings and streets cooler, which also helps reduce the air conditioning use of nearby buildings, which saves power.
We are also working on algae-growing solutions for carbon capture. There’s even one company that can turn algae into cheap plastic, meaning we can potentially farm plastic products and take CO2 out of the air while doing it.
Latest Answers