←back to thread

91 points PaulHoule | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.152s | source | bottom
Show context
f4c39012 ◴[] No.43682355[source]
my old boss had an idea - "bury trees".

There's a bit of nuance to be filled out, like challenges of forest plantation monoculture and so on, but it always sounded quite practical to me. Iirc the idea derived from "coal".

replies(9): >>43682386 #>>43682394 #>>43682395 #>>43682440 #>>43682492 #>>43682911 #>>43683041 #>>43683229 #>>43683306 #
1. parpfish ◴[] No.43682386[source]
Why do you have to bury them? Can’t you just let the logs sit on the forest floor?
replies(3): >>43682415 #>>43682416 #>>43682464 #
2. triceratops ◴[] No.43682415[source]
Decomposition returns carbon dioxide to the air. Or worse, methane, if there isn't enough oxygen.
replies(1): >>43684130 #
3. bryanlarsen ◴[] No.43682416[source]
They release their carbon as they rot or otherwise consumed. That's why the article talks about wood in cold streams, which rots very slowly.
4. myfonj ◴[] No.43682464[source]
In the long term they will decompose and return vast majority of its carbon back into atmosphere. Blame fungi and bacteria.
5. parpfish ◴[] No.43684130[source]
Don’t things decompose underground as well?
replies(1): >>43684444 #
6. triceratops ◴[] No.43684444{3}[source]
The carbon stays underground.