Let me first start with the disclaimer that I have no science background, and that much of the literature I find out there is difficult to digest. Someone tried writing me a missive in “laymen’s terms” all about ACC on his blog, with all the counter arguments refuted and all that jazz, but it was still a bit of a wash…Also, feel free to move this thread if it’s in the wrong place!
Yet, from what little I DO understand about the situation, it seems that:
[li]We have too much carbon dioxide.[/li][li]Trees absorb carbon dioxide[/li][li]Ergo, we need more trees.[/li][/ul]
Assuming there’s no gigantic pitfall in my logic so far, I googled the concept, and on the first page found this (somewhat dated) link, which suggests that if we did seriously consider this, we would need to do it tropical regions primarily.
I found this thread, but it’s over five years old as well, so I don’t think it’s unfair to do a new one.
This site suggest that roughly five trees will cover my own personal car’s use. Coupling in everyone else’s cars, not to mention everything else we use that has CO2, anyone care to take a guess as to how many trees we’d need to plant to completely offset CO2 use at, say, 2010 levels? Do we have enough hectares of land to pull it off? Is it feasible?