That’s the usual take, and we certainly shouldn’t have removed so much of those forests to begin with. The scale of carbon removal that will do is not enough to really solve much, after all we’re quickly burning ancient plant-sourced hydrocarbons made from thousands or more years of collection, so one forest isn’t going to balance that equation. And planting trees is more complex than many think, for it to survive and thrive it has to be diverse and not a single species. We should reforest, but for the purpose of recovering what we destroyed in biodiversity, not for any carbon capture effect.
If you’re in the midwest traditional prairie grasslands are the best carbon sinks ever. Their roots go down 6-12’, fire doesn’t kill them (so zero carbon is released) and they essentially live forever.
That’s the usual take, and we certainly shouldn’t have removed so much of those forests to begin with. The scale of carbon removal that will do is not enough to really solve much, after all we’re quickly burning ancient plant-sourced hydrocarbons made from thousands or more years of collection, so one forest isn’t going to balance that equation. And planting trees is more complex than many think, for it to survive and thrive it has to be diverse and not a single species. We should reforest, but for the purpose of recovering what we destroyed in biodiversity, not for any carbon capture effect.
If you’re in the midwest traditional prairie grasslands are the best carbon sinks ever. Their roots go down 6-12’, fire doesn’t kill them (so zero carbon is released) and they essentially live forever.
Carbon is still released when organic matter burns, even if it doesn’t completely destroy the root system.
Except the vast areas that European settlers destroyed.