What do you think about perennial grains that sequester carbon underground, like Kernza?
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/could-perennial-grains-be-n...
From what I understand, it can sequester carbon because its roots run pretty deep. But then what? Won't the soil become saturated with carbon? Or isn't that an issue?
That's right, and you won't have the carbon emissions that happen right now with annual grains from tillage/erosion/too much fertiliser.
Soil has a carbon budget but I'm not sure saturation is an issue - that's basically how grasslands work today
I really really wish YC would bring on a polymer, nuclear, petroleum, or materials engineer to help wrangle on these thesis-es on all things related to energy. [I'm more on the textiles side of polymers, but I'm here if you need me.]
Trees are not a great carbon removal technology, grasslands are much better as they aren't impacted by fires and droughts.
Grasslands sequester carbon underground whereas woody trees store it in leaves and woody biomass.
What you're saying is actually questionable in a non-stable climate which is what humanity has today.
I think it's really foolish to allow carbon pollution credits to be backed by trees instead of grasslands.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/trees-ma...
Also, bark beetles aside from droughts and fires are pretty onerous to tree populations.