I'm a bit confused by this effort. Isn't the idea that it isn't really next year or the next decade that we are worried about, but instead it is the long term impact of increasing CO2 on the environment that is the real problem.
CO2 added to the atmosphere from underground sources increases the net CO2 (for centuries); trees just move it temporarily from the atmosphere to the tree and then from the tree back to the atmosphere once the tree dies (through the process of decay or burning). Of course, using the timber for construction or paper or whatever keeps the CO2 from returning to the atmosphere longer, but eventually it ends up back in the atmosphere. At steady state the trees are dying and rotting at the same rate the the forest is growing.
Naturally, its a good thing that while the forest is growing it slows the overall rate of increase in CO2; perhaps having some number of decades of a tiny bit of our CO2 absorbed is a useful stopgap on the way to a world where we stop burning hydrocarbons pulled from under the earth. However, this isn't in any way a solution for the long term.
It seems unlikely that the world will utilize less energy in the future so the solution would seem to involve right away (1) moving from coal to natural gas (cuts CO2 generation in half for the same energy output) and as soon as possible (2) moving from all hydrocarbons to nuclear, solar, and wind.
If you maintain the forest, that is re-plant trees that die - which the forest will normally do itself once it is established, it is isn't temporarily.
It will be a buffer for CO2 that is bound in the forest as long as that forest stands, which could be for many, many millennia. Not everything will be released back to the atmosphere either, the forest will establish soil that will also bind a lot of carbon.
> trees just move it temporarily from the atmosphere to the tree and then from the tree back to the atmosphere once the tree dies (through the process of decay or burning).
Your point stands, but if the trees are used for construction or carpentry, it would move the CO2 release quite a long time away from now.
Cutting down old trees, using them efficiently (not burning them), and planting new ones works well to sequester carbon for a long time.
Humans harvest billions of trees a year we need to start replanting them in similar numbers. Btw this was not just about co2 it is also about replacing forests that were destroyed by illegal logging destroying rivers and animal habitats. The rainfall in these areas has come down a lot as well.
Absolutely, whether the logging was legal or not, loss of habitat is a very sad thing. Soon, many iconic animals -- the large mammals of Africa, gorillas, tigers and so forth -- will live only in zoos or special parks, but it isn't just those animals we see everyday on television that will no longer survive in the wild. Entire ecosystems are being lost with everything from the individual species of nematodes that survive on only one species of beetle that survives in only one habitat.
CO2 added to the atmosphere from underground sources increases the net CO2 (for centuries); trees just move it temporarily from the atmosphere to the tree and then from the tree back to the atmosphere once the tree dies (through the process of decay or burning). Of course, using the timber for construction or paper or whatever keeps the CO2 from returning to the atmosphere longer, but eventually it ends up back in the atmosphere. At steady state the trees are dying and rotting at the same rate the the forest is growing.
Naturally, its a good thing that while the forest is growing it slows the overall rate of increase in CO2; perhaps having some number of decades of a tiny bit of our CO2 absorbed is a useful stopgap on the way to a world where we stop burning hydrocarbons pulled from under the earth. However, this isn't in any way a solution for the long term.
It seems unlikely that the world will utilize less energy in the future so the solution would seem to involve right away (1) moving from coal to natural gas (cuts CO2 generation in half for the same energy output) and as soon as possible (2) moving from all hydrocarbons to nuclear, solar, and wind.