alt Hacker NewsThe problem is you cannot plant enough trees around the globe to offset our CO2 emissions. Also, a forest only absorbs CO2 while alive. Once it dies, it emits CO2 too. You would need to permanently store the wood somewhere (submerging in water, etc).
Recent article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/28/africa-f...
Replies
It's possible to permanently capture the carbon if you turn the wood into charcoal and ultimately bury or store that.
But left out to rot and yeah, the fungus and bacteria will ultimately consume the wood and release CO2 as a byproduct.
If these forests are planted by humans, why do we think the dead trees would just be left to rot like you suggest vs being harvested for wood? The logic does not compute other than trying to make a ridiculous point.
One little appreciated fact is that trees also respirate CO2 when they are cracking their stored sugars produced via photosynthesis. So they don’t sequester all of the CO2 that they consume.
Trees have advantages that go beyond bureaucratic aspects of environmentalism.
Planting trees solves both the carbon capture and the emissions issue from different angles. Some examples are:
- With more wood available it’s more economical to use it as a building/manufacturing material over other emissive sources (concrete, steel, plastic)
- We can replant the same area multiple times
- Even if we plant crops for biofuels, it’s closer to carbon neutral than burning fossil anyway
Every move we can make towards planting (and managing) more of the surface of the Earth is an improvement, without waiting for miraculous new technology.