Tree planting is, from a geologic perspective, a very short - term fix. What will be done with the trees when they die? Will the forest cover persist, or be replaced by alternative climax communities, will less locked in carbon?
Taking a tiny seed and putting it in a hole is nothing compared to the logistics of felling a tree and locking its carbon away from the biosphere. I don't think that the scaling of tree planting has been tested any more than most CDR schemes, which always seem to end up with "and then you just build the largest industry the world has ever seen, and *hey presto* the AGW problem is solved. A On Jun 7, 2013 1:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew: > > Agreed on Net^2. It'll be quite a few years before we run out of good > locations. > > I meant to get into the last message that we need to be thinking in > billions, not millions, of new trees per year. One per capita would help a > lot. Chinese schoolkids are planting I think 5 per year. > > Ron > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > *To: *"Ron Larson" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"geoengineering" <[email protected]>, "durbrow" < > [email protected]> > *Sent: *Thursday, June 6, 2013 5:38:35 PM > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project? > > Surely you also have to consider whatever vegetation your are replacing? > It's the net increase in net primary productivity which matters > > A > On Jun 7, 2013 12:33 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dr. D.and list >> >> I am not an expert in this area, but try to follow the subject >> closely - because it is a hugely important topic for biochar and you >> should get an answer. You asked below *"My guess is that many group >> members here might [think] this is among the least effective >> "geo-engineering" efforts. Am I wrong? *" >> >> My answer: we need more data. By no means "least" yet.. >> >> Googling found this Wiki statement (emphasis added): >> *'They grow at such a rate as to produce roughly 40 cubic feet (1.1 m3) >> of wood each year, approximately equal to the volume of a 50-foot-tall tree >> one foot in >> diameter.[7]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_giant_sequoias#cite_note-NPS2009-7>This >> makes them among the fastest >> growing organisms on Earth, in terms of annual increase in mass. " >> >> >> * This is encouraging but meaningless in CDR (NPP) terms until we >> know the associated tree age and land area. If the above hypothetical >> tree had unity density [barely floated] of about half carbon, we could say >> about 0.55 tonnes C/yr per tree. If there were 100 such trees per hectare >> (each occupying 100 sqm) or spaced about 10 meters apart, then we could >> say the NPP was about 55 tonnes C/ha-yr or about 5.5 kg C/sqm-yr. This >> would be astoundingly good. But could be off easily by a factor of10 if the >> 40 cu ft related to a 250 ft tall tree (maybe this growth statistic is >> for land with fewer than 10 trees per ha??). Anyone up on these numbers >> for giant sequoia? An actively managed planted forest might start off with >> 100 times as many trees per ha (one per sqm) - and slowly reduce the >> density to get the maximum annual dollar yield from the initial planting >> - the thinned little guys going to energy and biochar "of course". There >> are numerous forestry experts who know this proper (maxmum profit) planting >> and thinning schedule for different species. The growth follows a sigmoid >> curve shape - so we need data on that as well. If the maximum growth >> period is 500 years off, that is not so good. >> >> Speaking of biochar, millions of seedlings are now finding better >> growth and economics with char replacing vermiculite or similar starter >> "soil". >> >> Ron >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Dr D" <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:49:34 PM >> *Subject: *[geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project? >> >> Instead of sharing a paper, below is a 5 min video from the New York >> Times.... >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/06/science/100000002262388/reaching-for-the-sky.html >> >> The Archangel Project wants to take cuttings from giant trees (Sequoias), >> propagate them in the millions, and plant thousands of arces of them >> throughout the US (e.g. New England). The idea is to capture carbon and >> store if for thousands of years. >> >> My guess is that many group members here might this is among the least >> effective "geo-engineering" efforts. Am I wrong? >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
