Do trees only temporarily sequester carbon since the dead tree would later release carbon? Better solution?

Answer 1

Just about anything is temporary if you use a long enough time scale.

If a tree dies, then yes, some of the carbon in its body will be evolved into the atmosphere as it decays. But this will probably not even come close to the total amount it took out of the atmosphere. A few good exceptions include:

- Any sugars the tree produced that were consumed by animals will distribute the carbon into other living things instead of the atmosphere.

- Dead plant material often becomes part of the soil and serves as nutrients for other plants.

- Some dead plants are just buried and contained in the earth by geological processes. Were this not so, we would have no coal or petroleum to speak of. And if we weren't so busy digging that stuff out and burning it, much of it would likely have remained underground nearly forever.

If you're concerned out it, I can assure you that a better solution will likely arise shortly. Just as the process of producing aluminum metal made some chemist rich, there are many poor chemists eager to discover a way to turn carbon dioxide into diamonds (a very useful material to be able to produce on demand). Once we have this (it's only a matter of time), we may end up with the REVERSE problem - using too much free carbon and locking it forever away into diamonds!

Answer 2

Terra Preta is a manmade soil.
I think this is a better solution. Carbon is better sequestered in soils then oceans or trees.
I suppose an individual tree would sequester carbon for only as long as it is living. It makes sense; I'm not very sure what constitutes carbon sequestration in trees but I assume, every time a branch or leaf is grown, that is sequestering. I mean, more mass would contain more carbon.
But if you had a managed forest, where in new trees replaced oldtrees, you would have a constant amount of carbon in the trees.

Answer 3

Hello =)

A permanent forest permanently sequesters a certain amount of carbon, because while some trees die, others are constantly taking their place. That amount would be the weight of carbon in the mature forest.

From a certain perspective, if dead wood was utilized as fuel, instead of fossil fuels, (note, only dead wood, not living trees), the process would be CO2 neutral.

Another alternative, that would even sequester more carbon permanently, would be to make charcoal out of the deadwood, and incorporate that into cleared soils. Charcoal is virtually permanent -- not breaking down for many centuries.....

Google something called "terra preta" for ideas on this.

Namaste,

--Tom

Answer 4

A better solution is to limit our consumption of energy or need to "combust" hydrocarbons and thus limiting the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

Because unfortunately CO2 is not the only product of our primary combustions - sulfur, CO (monoxide) NO, O3, particulates - all these things in excess foul the air and water, while some do long lasting change CFCs to the upper ozone.

Trees and over all forest conservation is fantastic - not only for CO2 sequestering, but because of the habitat, the production of wood and paper (our best cheap, biodegradable resource), generation of O2, and aesthetic value.

Keep you mind on a holistic approach to conservation. If the problem is complex, the solution will be also.

Answer 5

Currently, a lot of Carbon is also locked away in rock in the form of Calcium Carbonate (Chalk, and Marble are made out of CaCO3). The natural rock cycle takes millions of years to complete the cycle. Creating carbon sinks into the making of sedimentary rock would be a long term alternative. However, this would require a lot of energy and time to do this, even artificially. So I don't know if it would be viable.

Answer 6

An even better suggestion would be to not worry about this as it really doesn't matter.