[roflmaostc]

The problem is you cannot plant enough trees around the globe to offset our CO2 emissions. Also, a forest only absorbs CO2 while alive. Once it dies, it emits CO2 too. You would need to permanently store the wood somewhere (submerging in water, etc).

Recent article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/28/africa-f...

[manoDev]

Planting trees solves both the carbon capture and the emissions issue from different angles. Some examples are:

- With more wood available it’s more economical to use it as a building/manufacturing material over other emissive sources (concrete, steel, plastic)

- We can replant the same area multiple times

- Even if we plant crops for biofuels, it’s closer to carbon neutral than burning fossil anyway

Every move we can make towards planting (and managing) more of the surface of the Earth is an improvement, without waiting for miraculous new technology.

[cogman10]

It's possible to permanently capture the carbon if you turn the wood into charcoal and ultimately bury or store that.

But left out to rot and yeah, the fungus and bacteria will ultimately consume the wood and release CO2 as a byproduct.

[Y-bar]

You don’t need to convert it to coal. Use it to build houses, furniture, and other things.

I am currently building a wooden house this way. Wooden frame, wooden exterior, wooden floors, even wood-based insulation (https://huntonfiber.co.uk/). The isolation has the shortest life span and it is expected to last at least 60 years.

[dylan604]

If these forests are planted by humans, why do we think the dead trees would just be left to rot like you suggest vs being harvested for wood? The logic does not compute other than trying to make a ridiculous point.

[thinkcontext]

I think this loses the forest for the trees. That is, a single tree rotting isn't what matters its how long the ecosystem the tree is part of lasts. Consider a square kilometer of denuded land turned back into a forest. You can think of the forest as a temporary storage for carbon, its stored in the trees, soil, animals, insects, etc in that square kilometer. Individual trees may die but on average if the forest remains in good health there will be a number of tons of carbon kept out of the atmosphere.

[arkensaw]

using the wood for heating also releases the CO2. I do think planting trees is a good idea, but it's worth pointing out they can be a carbon source even after harvesting, depending on the usage.

On the other hand if the wood is used for construction or furniture it will not emit.

[loeg]

What do you think happens to harvested wood?

[adregan]

One little appreciated fact is that trees also respirate CO2 when they are cracking their stored sugars produced via photosynthesis. So they don’t sequester all of the CO2 that they consume.

[OsrsNeedsf2P]

It's little appreciated since tree growth still consumes CO2

[xnx]

Biochar seems like a good option

[gs17]

It's a hugely underappreciated option. I'm not sure how accurate it is (or how legitimate the companies doing biochar carbon removal are), but cdr.fyi shows biochar as the top carbon sequestration method that's actually happening.

[nephihaha]

Trees have advantages that go beyond bureaucratic aspects of environmentalism.

[fsckboy]

I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree. -- Joyce Kilmer