Too bad global warming is rapidly worsening forest fires. Pretty sure these kinds of solutions are already DOA, even if they were being taken seriously. The runaway effects have begun to snowball.
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
168 points (100.0% liked)
News
30380 readers
2710 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So you're sayin' there's a chance?!
Frankly I'm surprised it's so little. I thought it wouldn't be possible with Earth's landmass period with trees alone.
Better get started, then.
What if we plant a tree on the freshly-dug grave of every billionaire?
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging!
By all means, feel free to figure out about filling it back in second, but that's doomed to failure if you skip step 1.
It's been great if we could slow down the rate at which the digging is increasing, for starters. Even that'd be a thing to see.
Good. hardest part of a solution is figuring out what we need. , now let's go drop apple tree seeds everywhere.
Not kidding. Couldn't hurt
Deal.
Next!
I would love to live in a tree house
It's almost like we only really had one option this entire time!
As an European, that works for me.
Can't they use Russia instead?
Most of Russia is covered by Forests or Peatlands, which are actually far superior in carbon sequestering. All the coal that is burned used to be peat. Same is true for most of Canada, which is in about the same climate zone.
The last thing we need is more meddling with one of the areas that actually helps in carbon sequestering.
I'd hold off until the current management is fired.
All the funds would get stolen to pay for big titties on mistresses and a pleasure yacht.
I doubt Russia is unique
And even if you did do that, where would you store the wood afterwards? You can't let it decay, that'd just put the carbon back into the atmosphere.
... don't cut them down?
You think trees don't die and fall down on their own?
Sometimes, sure.
And the rest of them just stay frozen upright forever, I suppose.
As long as new trees start at a higher rate than the old ones fall down...
This is not how forests work. They reach a saturation point quickly (in geological terms). What you need for continuous carbon sequestering is peat lands as the carbon gets turned into structures that aren't really bioavailable and the top layer slowly moves up.
That would require an ever-increasing amount of forested land. A carbon pyramid scheme. As soon as you stop increasing the forest's area it goes back to an equilibrium of trees decaying equalling trees growing.
You can build homes and all sorts of stuff out of wood. It doesn't have to be a low-tech backwards building material.
By the time we run out of land we'll all be long gone, and there will be complementary solutions.
Another problem with storing carbon as cellulose is it uses up all the available water. So the trees would need to be cut down and turned into charcoal to release the H's and O's, and then buried.
The world isn't short of water. I'd be more concerned about phosphorus and other such mineral nutrients, those would get pulled out of the soil and then not returned.
Frankly, I think the best approach to sequestration is to make plastic and bury it. Plastic has a much more controllable chemical structure, you can be sure to only get carbon that way.
How do you convert atmospheric carbon into plastic?