What is the best kind of tree to plant to absorb carbon dioxide?

Question

Is it better to plant fast growing trees? Or does it matter? Please only answer if you know what you are talking about.

Answer 1

It depends. Any tree will absorb about the same amount of CO2 for its size.

If you want to absorb a lot of CO2 quickly, fast-growing trees 9such as pine) are clearly the choice. However, slower-growing trees are also likely to last longer--oaks can live for many centuries.

The determining factor is what to do with trees once they are mature and their growth rate slows. This is a pooint that hasn't gotten a lot of attention-and should , in my opinion. Let me explain:

Suppose you could reforest a good sized region--say 100 square miles--with pine. Okay--30 years down the road, that new forest is loaded with matue trees. You've sequestered a lot of carboon dioxide. But now the new forest is in equiblibrium--old trees die and new ones grow, mantaining a balance. The forest is no longer taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's done all it can.

But what you could do is harvest the trees as they mature, allwing new growth to sequester more CO2 on an ongoing basis. What you do with the trees--the wood, mainly--then becomes important. Whatever use of it is made, it would need to be one that kept the wood from being burned, etc.

To put it in a simplistic way--you could simply stoe the cut wood in a way that would keep it from rotting. Just keep adding to the pile of wood as you sequestered more CO2 by growing more trees year after year. You could pull an incredible amount of CO2 out of the air ovr time this way.

People have done a number of studies of how to remove (seqeuster) CO2. Most involve complicated and expensive technologies. So far as I know, no one's studied how simply using natural means (growing trees) would work--the above is jsut my opinion. But it seems a lot more practical than trying to pump CO2 into the ground in a way that will keep it from leaking out over time, or other proposed solutions--and could e an economically viable industryin its own right--the wod can be used n many ways that don't reslt in it rotting, being burned, r otherwise releasing it s CO2 back intothe atmosphere.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

I'm not an expert but we did plant three small forests last year after taking expert advice and I've spoken to experts since so hopefully I can share some knowledge with you.

Above all else there's two important things - a) the type of trees you plant and b) where you plant them.

Fruit trees are excellent as are trees typically found in rainforests, especially the large, tall trees such as eucalyptus.

The hotter the climate the better, if you plant trees in cold climates, especially where it snows, you can have a negative impact - particularly if you plant evergreens.

By and large trees act as a carbon storehouse, they remove carbon dioixide from the atmopshere through the process of photosynthesis and store carbon within their cellulose fibres, about 70% of the mass of an average tree is carbon. However, when a tree degrades through processes such as biodegredation or combustion then the carbon stored within the tree is released again.

The right tree planted in the right place can lead to a net reduction in atmopsheric CO2 even if it is subsequently allowed to degrade. With the right planting, a tree during it's peak growing phase, will remove up to 40kg of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, a more typical figure is 20 to 30kg.

Plant the wrong tree in the wrong place (such as a sitka in Finland) and it causes a 'negative albedo'. The CO2 absorbed by the tree is more than offset by the tree's absorbption of solar radiation and transmission of thermal radiation and by the obscuring of reflective, snow covered ground.

If you're thinking of planting some trees in your yard or on some local land then you can't really go wrong with fruit trees. Not only are they good for reducing CO2 but they're aesthetically pleasing and provide a useful harvest.

Byderule and Permaculture Bella will be able to give you plenty of useful information about the best way to grow trees, how to plant and nurture them etc.

Answer 4

For those pulling out the shovels; tree’s will do relatively little to help with CO2 emissions. Even if you replanted all of North America you’d sequester only a portion of the US’ emissions. But not enough to handle Canada, China, India, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. It’s the soil, which has 3-4 times more carbon than the vegetation above them. If disturbed by planting activities they’ll release carbon with a vengeance. And trees have a habit of dying and decomposing, which puts a lot of that CO2 back into the atmosphere so decades of planting can easily be undermined. And since our goal is to pull CO2 permanently, trees are not the best solution. Most of the planets oxygen was/is produced from bacteria, algae, diatoms, and plankton that live in the sea. They absorb more carbon in a day than the Amazon does in a month. When they sequester carbon they also sequester minerals to build “skeletons”. Assuming they aren’t eaten (which most of them are providing most of the worlds biomass) they die naturally and sink to the bottom of the sea in a phenomenon known as “marine snow” to be buried under sediment for hundreds of thousands of years hopefully before they are eaten by bottom dwelling marine life which release carbon yet again. Being locked in mineral form buried on the sea floor is how much of the globes carbon has been handled throughout geologic history. It’s not to say tree’s aren’t useful. They can shade or windbreak a house reducing heating/AC use 10-15% so indirectly they lower emissions. They provide habitat, food for both wildlife or humans, situate micro-climate, humidify the atmosphere, lock in soil moisture, absorb pollution and volatile organics, provide shade, prevent soil erosion, restore river habitat and all and all they’re aesthetically attractive that’s enough reason to plant them.

Answer 5

Paulownia is what the world bank subsidises a lot of farmers for

quote

this tree is indestructible… it shot out of the ground in spring and grew 15 feet that year, then reached 25 feet the next year. It was like watching Jack and the Beanstalk.

You could measure its growth daily. My 6 year old was out there almost every day staring at it. Two of my neighbors thought it was so beautiful that they planted Empress Trees as well. I've even had professional landscapers stop and ask me where they can find them.

It’s an entertaining tree year-round. In the winter its branches are covered with furry, pea sized buds, just waiting to burst into huge flowers. At the first sign of spring, the tree explodes with purple blooms. Cars slow down to look at it. The fragrance is incredible… it’s like a cross between gardenia and jasmine.

When summer comes, the tree forms a dense canopy that can drastically cut your power bills. The leaves are huge, measuring about a foot wide. They’re almost tropical looking. When they drop in the fall, it’s an easy clean up... not like my Oaks that scatter tens of thousands of tiny leaves.

Plus, bigger leaves mean fewer branches, so you get more sunlight and natural heat coming through in the winter when you need it most.

Best of all, this is a tree you don’t have to baby. It grows almost everywhere, from Mexico to Canada, preferring zones 5-11. It has no significant insect or disease problems… tolerates drought…and grows in almost any kind of soil, even toxic ones. It's a hardwood tree that lives to an old age.

You can also feel good that you’re planting one of the most environmentally beneficial trees in the world. Those large leaves act as giant air filters, pulling pollution out of the air at a remarkable rate… turning it into wood, then releasing high amounts of beneficial oxygen.

This year’s Paulownia Trees are in short supply. Recent publicity and recommendations from TV shows like Oprah have fueled demand.

Just beware that not all Paulownia Trees are the same. Some nurseries use wild seed that doesn't grow as quickly. Others use growth inhibitors to keep their trees smaller for shipping. This can stay in the tree for several months, giving you disappointing results.

Answer 6

One in a tropical rain forest.

Rapid growth is indeed an issue. Planting a tree far away from the equator can actually be harmful, the dark leaves overpower the CO2 absorption.

In temperate latitudes it's pretty close to break even. And then, you must plan for harvesting the tree to use the wood so that it doesn't simply decay.

Answer 7

First off, I'm not an expert... But common sense would say that a tree which grows fast, would be removing more carbon from the atmosphere than a tree that grows slow. It locks that carbon it absorbs into its wood/fibers, and then emits oxygen back to the atmosphere...

Answer 8

Call your county extension agent. They will have a list of trees that will thrive in your soil and climate. If you plant the wrong kind of tree you will have to manage the tree for the rest of its life.

Answer 9

Most important - you must CUT DOWN the trees and use them for lumber to lock in that carbon dioxide. If they are allowed to die and rot or to burn in forest fires, you've accomplished nothing.

To think. All those years, the 'save the trees' folks had it wrong. It is the lumber companies that are helping take CO2 out of the atmosphere...

Answer 10

Ficus Trees.