Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StoneTwin t1_j5xup7i wrote

Reply to comment by DocWsky in Researchers unveil the least costly carbon capture system to date - down to $39 per metric ton. by heavy-metal-goth-gal

But they want to cut them down and sell them once they are big enough to really suck up a good dose of carbon each year.

4

Standard-Prize-8928 t1_j5y4cq9 wrote

I thought juvenile trees were the best for carbon intake

7

Manilikefungi t1_j5ye8ir wrote

They are the best purely for carbon capture rates since grow quik

5

Illustrious_Crab1060 t1_j606ve2 wrote

... and also traps carbon in buildings instead of decaying and releasing all the C02 back

2

DocWsky t1_j5xusaz wrote

Painfully true

0

Dorocche t1_j6042xo wrote

It's not true at all lol, that's not how trees or carbon work.

Trees don't passively remove carbon dioxide from the air. Trees remove carbon dioxide by growing and turning that carbon into bark, stems, leaves, etc. And they release carbon when they burn or decompose.

Planting a tree sucks up exactly as much carbon as is the size of that tree, and no more once it stops growing. Replacing it with a baby tree will suck up way more carbon, and if we turn it into chairs instead of burning it then those tons of carbon are gone from the atmosphere for the foreseeable future.

3

Aezyre t1_j5yls4g wrote

Let them do that, then just stop recycling any cardboard or paper and instead pump it into old oil wells.

0