The problem is trees are short-term (even the long-lived ones) and only a part of the solution because they are a part of the carbon cycle. We need to remove carbon from the carbon cycle.

Another part of the solution is pyrolysis of industrial plant waste into biochar/charcoal. This stable form of carbon can last thousands of years underground and does not need any fancy technology or equipment.

I feel extremely dumb now. I am gonna take my leave.

And grass, and bushes, and all things green that grow. The phytoplankton in the ocean actually process more CO2 than anything else on the planet. That's one reason why ocean warming is so concerning.

😂🙏🏽

Doesn’t help through forest fires

But the tree angle is mostly used by polluters to say they are carbon neutral because they planted some trees somewhere so they can continue polluting

Not saying you are one of them, just to not put so much stock in it when we should be aiming for elimination

While trees are great and you have a point, we can't just put trees everywhere without consideration of native species. Much of the U.S. for example is prairie/grasslands that doesn't have a high tree density and the carbon is cycled much faster. Also of concern (not my concern but somebody's) is the property value of land used for trees instead of profit.

A acre of hemp regrown every year and a biochar retort could sequester far more carbon than an acre of forest over a given period and can be done on "wastelands". Biochar IMHO is the only carbon sequestration method that actually makes sense.