Why not use plants to absorb the excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

Answer 1

I think this is an integral part of the solution. This could be achieved on a global scale with one effort, cutting back drastically on commercial air travel. The amount of air pollution cause by commercial air liners alone has caused the oxygen producing flora in the oceans to drop dramatically over the past 50 years. The massive decrease in these pollutants during the no fly period after 911 exposed this little fact. With this single action 75% of the planets surface could begin to produce ocean flora exponentially.

Answer 2

If the plants live for a very long time this will help. However if the plants live for a short time it will not help and here is why. While a plant is alive and growing it is capturing CO2 to make plant tissues. However as soon as it dies it starts to decay and it releases all of that CO2 back into the atmosphere. A tree like a giant Redwood can live for a thousand years and so it will tie up a lot of CO2 for a very long time and that will help. A plant like a grass that lives for only one season and then dies will remove the CO2 for only a year or two and so that doesn't really help.

The problem is that the CO2 being released by burning fossil fuels was first removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. It has not been in the atmosphere for millions of years and now it is. Also it took millions of years worth of plants (and animals) dieing and turing into coal, oil and natural gas to trap all that CO2.

You might wonder why the same thing would not work now. Why not just grow plants and then bury them to capture the CO2? The number one problem is that most of the plant will rot and release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Millions of years ago when plants were dieing and turning to coal only a very very tiny fraction ever turned into coal, the vast majority just rotted and released their CO2 back into the atmosphere. So while it would work. It would take literally millions of years to recapture the fossil fuel based CO2 that mankind has released over the last 100 years or so. Sad but true.

Natural processes will certainly eventually reduce the CO2 levels, but they will take many thousands of years to do so.

Answer 3

Engineer has provided an excellent answer and demonstrated he clearly knows what he's talking about.

Just to add...

There are already a number of schemes that focus on planting trees, and to a lesser extent other plants, as a means of sequestering carbon dioxide.

About 67% of the mass of a tree is converted CO2. Provided the tree remains intact this carbon is locked away, once a tree degrades the carbon is released again.

There are other things to be taken into account. In cold climates tree planting can be detrimental and can be a net contributor to global warming, in temperate climates there is neither a gain nor a loss unless the carbon remains locked within the tree indefinitely. In Tropical and Equatorial regions there is a net benefit even if the tree degrades.

Planted in the right area the right tree, once established, will sequester an average 30 to 40kg of CO2 per annum (over and above any that is used in the production of cellulose). On this basis we could plant close on a TRILLION trees within the Tropics and this would offset our carbon emissions.

Therein lies the problem - it's one of scale. Last year we emitted 29 trillion kg of CO2 emissions, if the trees we plant each sequester 35kg of CO2 per year we need 829 billion of them.

So, whilst it's not practical to use trees as the only solution they can definitely be one aspect of a multi faceted approach.

Answer 4

That is one idea people are looking at--the idea being to restore many of the areas where forests have been leveled. This could absorb quite a bit of the CO2.

Keep in mind, however, that this won't help a whole lot unless we reduce the amount of CO2 that's being added to the atmosphere. I"Reforestation" looks like a good strategy--but its not a substitute for reducing emissions.

Answer 5

Plant life grows extremely well with excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. To imagine what it would be like for a plant, just imagine a smoker who suddenly quits smoking and the amount of excess oxygen going into his system and what this does? Or someone who has lived high up in the mountains all his life suddenly comes down to sea level? Or do some heavy breathing.

It is incorrect to believe that you need to plant lots of large trees to offsett the carbon and that we have to sit around waiting for these plants to grow. Plants actually grow at a faster rate when there is more CO2. Any plant will do. You can plant vines, sea weed, phyto plankton, have vines crawling up all our buildings, plant moss wherever we can, make rooftop gardens, line our streets with trees, etc...

CO2 is the wonder drug of creating a green world. What we need is a mass movement that introduces green all over the earth from our urban settings to our suburban lifestyles. Fill you house with plants. Have gardens. Grow your own natural food. Dead plants make great food for live plants so it is the ultimate recyclable CO2 absorber!

This is a much better solution than the creation of a carbon market that so many politicians are asking for. Carbon IS Life. It is the basis for life. Carbon is also the basic energy that fuels the human body as well. Carbon is so basic to life and life force that all life forms are carbon based. We shouldn't give that control of carbon to big international government agencies. Or we may end up with something similar to another great Democrat Swindle (most of you are probably to young to know this) when they introduced fluoride into all our tap water (and the main reason for thyroid disorder which most Americans don't even know they suffer from.) Of course, the carbon market idea is the King Bee of all of them.

Answer 6

Simple answer would be to get more people to take plant seeds on their holidays and drop them where needed - in places there is no or very little growth. Ma nature does n't move around like we hope she would - so people can help where needed. Plant tree seeds in the remote areas and places that are in need of said vegetation.
The more seeds we plant - the more growth - the fresher and cleaner the air would be.

Answer 7

You mean plants like the trees that are getting cut down by the millions in the Amazon?

Answer 8

Unfortunately, there are more asphalt roads being introduced to the environment worldwide than there are new plantings of vegetation. Go to one of the satellite image sites to see the black or grey areas asphalt is currently.
Because of this there is definitely a problem with global warming and greenhouse gases.

Answer 9

although the use of trees is a great idea to get rid of the excess CO2, it's also impractical. First, it takes a long time for a tree to grow not to mention proper care and feeding. Second, we would need several of them to take care of that. There is also the problem of cutting down trees for fuel and other products like paper and the fact that we are cutting down forest to make room for growing population. So although in theory it's a great idea but in practice it's not that easy.

Answer 10

Well some people are planting them, but others are cutting them down much faster. Plant your own though :)