News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre. Parent comment

Re:Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per ... by olliej on Friday August 02, 2019 @05:32PM (#20596835)
No one is suggesting we cut down other trees though, there are large expanses of deforested land and the goal here would be rapid reforestation.

Replacing a complete lack of tree with any other tree is an improvement.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per ... by anakaine on Friday August 02, 2019 @06:42PM (#20597271)
Not quite true with regards to local and downstream environments. The best case here is probably to identify deforested areas that are geographically constrained - ie difficult for seeds to be blown or washed away, and plant there - noting that iot's now a sacrificial area for decarbonising forestation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per ... by quixoticelixer- on Friday August 02, 2019 @06:42PM (#20597267)
Maybe not replacing lack of tree with exotic invasives trees
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per ... by olliej on Friday August 02, 2019 @08:35PM (#20597840)
The principle reason for favoring this tree (not arguing whether it's good or bad) is the vastly superior rate of carbon sequestration. Most trees are (apparently, just according to the article) only capable of sequestering 1.1-9.5 tonnes of carbon per acre per year, this type can apparently take up more than 100 tonnes per acre per year.
[ Parent | on HN ]