<p>This question is from 2014 with answers from 2015. Just to add the point of view of some research that has been done since.</p>
<p>In essence, new calculations show that NCS (natural climate solutions: a combination of land management, forestation, etc):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...can provide over
one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now
and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C.</p>
<p>Source: Griscom et al (2017), <em>Natural climate solutions</em>, PNAS, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114" rel="noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>However!</p>
<p>Turns out that trees, other than sequestering carbon, also emit volatile organic compounds (VOC) that act as greenhouse gases. Therefore, the answer isn't as simple as planting trees.</p>
<p>Quoting some recent articles on the subject:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Many scientists applaud the push for expanding forests, but some urge caution. They argue that forests have many more-complex and uncertain climate impacts than policymakers, environmentalists and even some scientists acknowledge. Although trees cool the globe by taking up carbon through photosynthesis, they also emit a complex potpourri of chemicals, some of which warm the planet. The dark leaves of trees can also raise temperatures by absorbing sunlight. Several analyses in the past few years suggest that these warming effects from forests could partially or fully offset their cooling ability.</p>
<p>Source: Gabriel Popkin (2019), <em>How much can forests fight climate change?</em>, Nature, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00122-z" rel="noreferrer">http://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00122-z</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>and</p>
<blockquote>
<p>That doesn’t mean that all forests cool the planet, however. Researchers have known for decades that tree leaves absorb more sunlight than do other types of land cover, such as fields or bare ground. Forests can reduce Earth’s surface albedo, meaning that the planet reflects less incoming sunlight back into space, leading to warming. This effect is especially pronounced at higher latitudes and in mountainous or dry regions, where slower-growing coniferous trees with dark leaves cover light-coloured ground or snow that would otherwise reflect sunlight. Most scientists agree, however, that tropical forests are clear climate coolers: trees there grow relatively fast and transpire massive amounts of water that forms clouds, two effects that help to cool the climate.</p>
<p>Source: Gabriel Popkin (2019)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Atmospheric chemist Nadine Unger, then at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, conducted one of the first global studies examining one part of this exchange: the influence of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, emitted by trees. These include isoprene, a small hydrocarbon that can warm the globe in several ways. It can react with nitrogen oxides in the air to form ozone — a potent climate-warming gas when it resides in the lower atmosphere. Isoprene can also lengthen the lifetime of atmospheric methane — another greenhouse gas. Yet isoprene can have a cooling influence, too, by helping to produce aerosol particles that block incoming sunlight.</p>
<p>Source: Gabriel Popkin (2019)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Plants take up carbon dioxide and release volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), in a similar way to how other organisms breathe in oxygen and
exhale CO2. These VOCs are oxidized in the atmosphere and then
contribute substantially to the burden of tiny particles suspended in
the air, which are known as aerosols. Aerosols produced from VOCs are
known as secondary organic aerosols (SOAs), and affect both air
quality and Earth’s climate. The total rate of SOA production was
thought to be the sum of the individual rates associated with the
oxidation of each VOC. But writing in Nature, McFiggans et al.1 show
that a more accurate description is needed to improve the
representation of SOAs in computational models of air quality and
climate.</p>
<p>Fangqun Yu (2019), <em>Atmospheric reaction networks affecting climate are more complex than was thought</em>, Nature, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00263-1" rel="noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00263-1</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sources of the articles:</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114" rel="noreferrer">one</a>; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00122-z" rel="noreferrer">two</a>; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00263-1" rel="noreferrer">three</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T12:04:39.777Z
Do you know of any research on how the presence of photosynthesising (eg algae) and calcifying organisms (eg coccolithophorids and foraminifera) in the ocean - of which the Earth is mostly covered - act as a "correcting force" on atmospheric carbon?
52d6c6af
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T09:58:40.470Z
2019-02-25T22:31:00.850Z
2020-06-18T08:25:19.090Z
Gimelist
<p>At our current rate of global emissions - around 10 billion tonnes per year, PWC's 2013 report estimated that we will exceed the "safe" limit of 2 degrees warming by 2034. Trees planted in tropical areas sequester an average of 22.6 Kg of carbon per annum. NASA estimates that there are currently 400 billion trees globally. The addition of just 7 billion trees (one for every person on Earth) would therefore give us a further 16 years of safe climate at our current rate of emissions. During this time one would hope we will be able to increase renewable energy use, energy efficiency etc so as to reduce our current emissions to sustainable levels. 7 billion is vastly less than the 1,555 billion quoted above and could make all the difference.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-26T20:52:46.650Z
I don't think your numbers are quite correct.   Trees can absorb 22.6 KG of CO2, not Carbon - source:  https://www.americanforests.org/discover-forests/tree-facts/   or 48 lbs in the article I posted, while growing.    That's a bit under 6.2 KGs of Carbon.  7 billion trees x 6.2 KGs = 43.4 billion KG or about 48 million tons of carbon.    I don't know how a 0.48% reduction would buy 16 years, but that seems to be what you're suggesting, unless I got my numbers wrong.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-26T06:48:29.323Z
2015-04-26T06:48:29.323Z
Phillip Mills
<p>Question;
<strong>Given that, how many trees would I need to plant to solve the global climate change crisis? Should I optimize for a specific type of tree, or would pine work as well as oak or black walnut?</strong></p>
<p>First, you need to think it as a forest. In a forest there are also trees which lose the game of evolution in addition to trees that win.</p>
<p>Second, you need to look where (in terms of climate) your forest is, and what's its soil. This defines the tree type.</p>
<p>Third, you need to cut your forest on time to optimize it' growth rate. 26 years is optimum, so roughly 4 times a century.</p>
<p>This way you can <a href="http://www.puuproffa.fi/PuuProffa_2012/7/puun-kasvu/metsan-kasvu" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reach growth rates like 4.8 tn/ha/year in Finland</a> or<br />
<a href="http://www.forestresearchgroup.com/Newsletters/V8No2.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">5.16 tons/acre/year in the USA.</a> I am not sure about the unit used in this source, but if their ton is 907 kg and an acre is 4046.85 m<span class="math-container">$^2$</span>, this results in 11.56 tn/ha/year.</p>
<p>If the used carbon amount is <span class="math-container">$9.2 \times 10^9$</span> tons, and <a href="http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1984/pette84a.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">half of wood weight is carbon</a> then you need <span class="math-container">$1.6 \times 10^9$</span> ha or 16 000 000 km<span class="math-container">$^2$</span> of forest.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_land_area" rel="nofollow noreferrer">There is 39 500 000 km<span class="math-container">$^2$</span> of forest in the world.</a>
If 40% of it is used optimally, it would be enough at present rates. The CO<span class="math-container">$_2$</span> concentration is not a problem; human population growth is.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T09:26:04.000Z
So what do you do with the wood once harvested to prevent the carbon returning to the atmosphere?
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T09:33:46.860Z
Well, you need to figure the reasonable usage for the wood by your self. I don't know why you need to prevent it to return to the atmosphere. I think it's enough as the circulation is in balance.
Jokela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T09:48:16.233Z
It is only in balance as long as the carbon doesn't get back to the atmosphere.  You are forgetting that if you allow the wood to decay or be burnt then that represents an increase in emissions into the atmosphere and the system is no longer in balance.
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T10:38:52.273Z
@DikranMarsupial No. It was in balance also when the coal was on the ground. Now the same coal is on houses, on living biomass, paper, food, in Biodiesel stored in the tanks. Just calculate the population growth; + 7 000 000 000 since 1800; 62 kg average, 18.5 Carbon; 11.5 kg each, totals 80.5 million tons of coal. Then all the animals, food plants everything. Photosynthesis takes 100 000-115 000 Million metric tons of carbon into Biomass every year. its 10 x more than man does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis Your "problem" is not within the measurable accuracy.
Jokela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T10:50:14.583Z
@JokelaTurbine You are making an elementary error by ignoring that fact that it is the difference between total uptake and total emissions that govern atmospheric concentrations.  Anthropogenic emissions are large compared with the difference in natural emissions and natural uptake.  If you use forresting to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, but then burn the wood, it is releasing all the carbon back into the atmosphere that was taken out by photosynthesis, and thus has no effect on the balance of emissions and uptake, and hence won't solve anything.
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T12:29:38.813Z
@DikranMarsupial Thank's for chat. I do not practice evangelism. If economy growths, the central bank must supply more money, new money. If the total biomass amount growths, the additional coal must also come form somewhere; new coal. If the present atmospherical carbon consumption; 100 Mrd tons, can be doubled by plants, the 10 Mrd. tons produced by man, just can't make any kind of difference. If you believe such, I am fine. Please do your best to reduce your own emission, but please respect also my right to not pay to your church.
Jokela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T13:15:16.983Z
"I do not practice evangelism" " my right to not pay to your church." it is a shame that discussions of climate so rapidly decay into this sort of rhetoric.  I have pointed out the error in your accounting of carbon fluxes, and you have not addressed it.
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T17:50:18.580Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/31879/discussion-between-jokelaturbine-and-dikran-marsupial).
Jokela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T17:53:47.740Z
lets not, I have found that when people start using religion based rhetorical digs the chances of having a rational discussion of science tend to be rather limited.
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T18:53:33.240Z
@DikranMarsupial Any way you want. You should ask your own question to clear up the facts about where the Carbon is located in the world. Though these are easily available on wiki; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#Main_components
Jokela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-12T08:54:40.337Z
@JokelaTurbine where the carbon is located in the world and how much carbon is in the atmosphere are two entirely different questions.   Dikran Marsupial's point is straight forward and your answer is lacking for not addressing it.  Forests take CO2 out of the atmosphere but also return CO2 to the Atmosphere.  The rate of tree growth isn't important.  It's the carbon storage that's important.  If the trees are cut down every 25 years, you need to account for what happens after they are cut down.  By not doing so, you're not answering the question.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 4.0
2015-11-18T08:10:31.287Z
2020-12-04T07:44:58.460Z
2020-12-04T07:44:58.460Z
Jokela
<p>None, except tropical young trees. Overall, trees are carbon neutral. Wood/biomass has to be geologically sequestered to store carbon in the long term. That requires a tree with</p>
<ul>
<li>a long life span (sequoia, cypress, etc)</li>
<li>and growing in swampy conditions (to hold the remnants in sediment)</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-09T17:34:12.500Z
2020-12-04T09:53:38.617Z
2020-12-04T09:53:38.617Z
LazyReader
<p>In 2010 anthropogenic emissions (not including land use change) were approximately <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems" rel="noreferrer">9167 million metric tonnes</a>.  Your data on trees holding 13 lbs (5.9 kg) of carbon per year equates to 169.6 trees per metric tonne of emissions.  </p>

<p>So to take up all of the emissions from 2010 you would need 1,545,000,000,000 trees.  A mature forest has only about <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ML3jtMUzRZgC&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=trees%20per%20acre%20mature%20forest&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YrctJbM_L7&amp;sig=gL5m4Uma36o1QM1bpl45fHswQkE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=TPRAVP_QGfHg7QayyYH4DQ&amp;ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=trees%20per%20acre%20mature%20forest&amp;f=false" rel="noreferrer">100 trees per acre</a> (400 per hectare), so you would need 15,545,000,000 acres of mature forest.  This equals an area of 24,290,000 mi<sup>2</sup> (62,910,000 km<sup>2</sup>).  This is approximately the land area of <a href="https://www.infoplease.com/world/world-geography/world-land-areas-and-elevations" rel="noreferrer">Asia, Europe, and Australia combined</a>!<br>
The surface area of land on the planet is about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth" rel="noreferrer">150,000,000 km<sup>2</sup></a>, so in principle we would need to add cover onto 42% of the current land (or we could take soil from deep ocean floors to landfill 1/5th of the oceans!) in order to plant enough trees to solve the problem.</p>

<p>This also assumes that the 13 pounds (5.9 kg) of carbon figure is for mature forests, rather than for growing trees (see comments for further discussion).  If this value is for young developing trees, it would indicate less be attainable in the longrun.  If the 13 pounds is for a developed forest, perhaps a greater amount could be removed in early years as a temporary quicker fix.</p>

<p>There is also the problem that forested land is likely to have a lower albedo than the land surface that it covers, and hence the planet will reflect less sunlight back into space which would lead to some extra warming, so we would also need to compensate for that somehow.  Apparently <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_area" rel="noreferrer">about 26% of Earth's land</a> is already covered with forests.  I rather doubt over half of the uncovered land surface is suitable for new forests, the continents have large bands either side of the equator that are generally too arid, and the regions close to the poles are too cold.</p>

<p>In short, it isn't going to work, even with the most generous assumptions about forest CO<sub>2</sub> exchanges (unless of course I have made an arithmetic error, which is definitely a possibility).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-17T18:48:12.350Z
The forest growth rate is too low. And Peatlands are allready filling 2/3 of the gap; http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=523&ArticleID=5723&l=en You need maybe 15% forest to do the job. Currently we have 30%.
Jokela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-17T19:36:44.033Z
"The forest growth rate is too low. " evidence? "And Peatlands are allready filling 2/3 of the gap; " as far as I can see, the web page you cite does not support that conclusion, especially the part that starts ""Permafrost and steppe peatlands are already being impacted by climate change,"
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-18T07:35:11.017Z
Here's an English paper for Forest growth; http://www.forestresearchgroup.com/Newsletters/V8No2.pdf the growth the peak is 8.48 tn/acre, average around 4-5 tn/acre in presented forests. (tn ->biomass)
Jokela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-19T08:41:52.700Z
(1) that paper is discussing the growth rate of the tree, trees are not 100% carbon by weight. (2) the article begins by pointing out that you can't expect this rate from a stand of trees year on year, so it explicitly refutes your use of that figure.  The growth rate of mature forest is much lower, and they are near carbon neutral as primary production is more or less completely offset by decay and respiration.
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-20T09:12:14.290Z
See my own answer below. If you are planning to plant trees to harvest carbon, you might want to do it correctly. And really harvest the carbon; mean the trees.
Jokela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-26T11:10:15.130Z
@DikranMarsupial I tried to add more consistently SI units but I couldn't match them.  Did you mix up mi² and km²?  I end up with >100% forest cover.  Also, this would be needed *every year*, no?
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-27T09:06:31.183Z
Please re-read this "so this equates to an area of 62,917,471 square miles (162,955,502 km²). The surface area of the land on the planet is 148,940,000 km2, so we could in principle solve the global warming problem by covering a bit of 42% of the Earths landmass with forests"
y chung
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-27T09:10:28.263Z
Is this "13 lbs is 5.896 kg, so you need 169.6 trees per metric tonne of emissions" refering to 5.8kg of carbon captured per year?
y chung
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-29T10:32:46.367Z
@ychung I'm sorry, I don't know what you are trying to point out in your first comment.  According to the source linked in the original question "Trees absorb carbon dioxide and potentially harmful gasses, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, from the air and release oxygen. ... A healthy tree can store 13 pounds of carbon each year" the carbon in a tree primarily comes from CO2 from the atmosphere, so yes, this is 13lbs captured per year.
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-29T13:28:04.837Z
@ Dikran Marsupial the land area needed is greater than the total surface area on Earth based on the unit you provided. 162,955,502 km² > 148,940,000 km2
y chung
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-30T08:59:38.527Z
@ychung ah, well spotted, I obviously was comparing the miles^2 figure with the km^2 figure (will check and correct later), many thanks!
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-02T22:26:58.113Z
@clabacchio: can you further explain what math brought about your changes?
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-03T08:08:13.140Z
@JeopardyTempest not much really, I just noticed that the previous 42% figure was due to a miles^2/km^2 division, while the km^2 figures show that the required forest area is larger than Earth's land surface....darn imperial units :)
clabacchio
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-03T11:50:28.347Z
@clabacchio I went back and checked the math... looks like Dikran put the wrong units on the number (as other comments noted).  That should clear it up now, I believe.  (His percent was right, his units were wrong, leading to the confusion).  Feel free to check it.  Thanks for trying to take the initiative after seeing issues, it's good to have it fixed up.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-03T13:48:52.073Z
@JeopardyTempest great job! I didn't get that far in checking the maths, I just tried to divide mi2/km2 and got that 42% and assumed that was the case...so there is still hope...or maybe not ;)
clabacchio
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T23:46:22.297Z
This article which is featured by Google in its preview says a tree can take 1 ton carbon dioxide in 40 years which is 25 kg / 55 pounds per year (that's 4 times more co2 and 4 times less area/trees) projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm .
Pablo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T07:49:16.533Z
@Pablo I think that is for a growing tree, not for a mature forest, which is what you would need to solve the problem of climate change in the long run, rather than just putting a temporary dent in it.  It is also a maximum figure, not an average.  n.b. both articles are from the same site.
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-17T11:04:03.790Z
2017-11-03T11:48:33.100Z
2017-11-03T11:48:33.100Z
Dikran Marsupial
<p>According to NASA, <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">causes of the Earth's greenhouse effect</a> include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs.  Carbon dioxide gets the most press, and NASA's page says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived &quot;forcing&quot; of climate change.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/benefits.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">An article</a> by NC State University says that a healthy tree can store 13 pounds of carbon per year.  As I understand it, carbon dioxide is processed by the tree: the carbon is stored, and the oxygen released.</p>
<p>Given that, how many trees would I need to plant to solve the global climate change crisis?  Should I optimize for a specific type of tree, or would pine work as well as oak or black walnut?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-18T15:29:08.700Z
I suggest you look at the work of [WeForest](http://weforest.org/), they should know ;-)
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-18T15:31:39.960Z
@Simon, PhilipTheGreat: The relevant number is the amount of CO2 permanently stored **in** the trees, assuming you replant dead trees. This is the **carbon sink** to be calculated.
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-02T18:46:50.953Z
we use millions of barrels of oil every day
bandybabboon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-16T18:25:43.477Z
if you cut the tree down and build something out of it then grow a new one it stores carbon, if you let it rot or burn it, it just releases it back into the atmosphere.
John
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-22T09:32:55.760Z
@DavidHammen, and if you put them in the Mariana Trench, they'll rot and release methane, an even worse greenhouse gas :/
Turion
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T00:07:18.440Z
This article (with one source) says a bamboo can take 300 or 400 kgs of co2 per year. quora.com/At-what-rate-does-a-bamboo-tree-capture-CO2 . You better try bamboos that way . This one claims 6,88 tonnes per acre vs 0,590 tn per acre of tree if I understood correctly https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215475397_Bamboo_plantations_An_approach_to_Carbon_sequestration
Pablo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T12:07:07.390Z
71% of the Earth is covered by water, so leveraging algae and calcareous microorganisms might be a good co-strategy to planting trees...
52d6c6af
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-16T18:32:02.983Z
The only concern I would have with that approach is that it is trying to solve one particular issue by putting another type of stress on the environment (too may trees, especially if they are non-native and planted in high concentrations, isn't necessarily a good thing), so I am not sure that it would be the answer to the problem.
Isopycnal Oscillation
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-16T18:39:56.847Z
A lot. Even then, unless you harvested those trees, bound them down with lots of rocks, and then dropped the whole mess into the Mariana Trench, this would only be a stopgap measure. Wood-eating insects, bacteria, and fungi eventually release most of the carbon temporarily bound by trees back into the atmosphere.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-16T22:22:52.487Z
Because trees release the carbon when they die, the relevant figure is not a number of trees, but a rate of planting - How many trees per year. Or, perhaps better, what area of new forest per year . I haven't done the maths, but I suspect you'd rapidly run out of planet...
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-18T02:52:05.000Z
Wood.  Wood is good. Furniture.  Bridges.  Buildings.  Algae is pretty good at pulling carbon too I've heard, which has many uses.
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-18T02:53:48.090Z
This question is highly dependent on the tree type.  Some of the fastest growing trees in the world are also junk in terms of usage (but they pull a lot of carbon out).  The proposals I have seen suggest whatever the tree type, they can try to convert to fuels instead of letting it burn/decay.
f.thorpe
<climate-change><carbon-cycle>
How many trees would I have to plant to solve Global Warming?
philipthegreat
# How many trees would I have to plant to solve Global Warming?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-16)

According to NASA, [causes of the Earth's greenhouse effect](http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs. Carbon dioxide gets the most press, and NASA's page says:

> Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

[An article](http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/benefits.htm) by NC State University says that a healthy tree can store 13 pounds of carbon per year. As I understand it, carbon dioxide is processed by the tree: the carbon is stored, and the oxygen released.

Given that, how many trees would I need to plant to solve the global climate change crisis? Should I optimize for a specific type of tree, or would pine work as well as oak or black walnut?

**Tags:** climate-change, carbon-cycle

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: The only concern I would have with that approach is that it is trying to solve one particular issue by putting another type of stress on the environment (too may trees, especially if they are non-native and planted in high concentrations, isn't necessarily a good thing), so I am not sure that it would be the answer to the problem.  
> **username_8**: A lot. Even then, unless you harvested those trees, bound them down with lots of rocks, and then dropped the whole mess into the Mariana Trench, this would only be a stopgap measure. Wood-eating insects, bacteria, and fungi eventually release most of the carbon temporarily bound by trees back into the atmosphere.  
> **username_9**: Because trees release the carbon when they die, the relevant figure is not a number of trees, but a rate of planting - How many trees per year. Or, perhaps better, what area of new forest per year . I haven't done the maths, but I suspect you'd rapidly run out of planet...  
> **username_10**: Wood.  Wood is good. Furniture.  Bridges.  Buildings.  Algae is pretty good at pulling carbon too I've heard, which has many uses.  
> **username_10**: This question is highly dependent on the tree type.  Some of the fastest growing trees in the world are also junk in terms of usage (but they pull a lot of carbon out).  The proposals I have seen suggest whatever the tree type, they can try to convert to fuels instead of letting it burn/decay.  
> **username_1**: I suggest you look at the work of [WeForest](http://weforest.org/), they should know ;-)  
> **username_1**: @username_9, PhilipTheGreat: The relevant number is the amount of CO2 permanently stored **in** the trees, assuming you replant dead trees. This is the **carbon sink** to be calculated.  
> **username_2**: we use millions of barrels of oil every day  
> **username_3**: if you cut the tree down and build something out of it then grow a new one it stores carbon, if you let it rot or burn it, it just releases it back into the atmosphere.  
> **username_4**: @username_8, and if you put them in the Mariana Trench, they'll rot and release methane, an even worse greenhouse gas :/  
> **username_5**: This article (with one source) says a bamboo can take 300 or 400 kgs of co2 per year. quora.com/At-what-rate-does-a-bamboo-tree-capture-CO2 . You better try bamboos that way . This one claims 6,88 tonnes per acre vs 0,590 tn per acre of tree if I understood correctly https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215475397_Bamboo_plantations_An_approach_to_Carbon_sequestration  
> **username_6**: 71% of the Earth is covered by water, so leveraging algae and calcareous microorganisms might be a good co-strategy to planting trees...  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_15 on 2014-10-17. Score: 49 | Accepted answer

In 2010 anthropogenic emissions (not including land use change) were approximately [9167 million metric tonnes](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems). Your data on trees holding 13 lbs (5.9 kg) of carbon per year equates to 169.6 trees per metric tonne of emissions.

So to take up all of the emissions from 2010 you would need 1,545,000,000,000 trees. A mature forest has only about [100 trees per acre](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ML3jtMUzRZgC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=trees%20per%20acre%20mature%20forest&source=bl&ots=YrctJbM_L7&sig=gL5m4Uma36o1QM1bpl45fHswQkE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TPRAVP_QGfHg7QayyYH4DQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=trees%20per%20acre%20mature%20forest&f=false) (400 per hectare), so you would need 15,545,000,000 acres of mature forest. This equals an area of 24,290,000 mi2 (62,910,000 km2). This is approximately the land area of [Asia, Europe, and Australia combined](https://www.infoplease.com/world/world-geography/world-land-areas-and-elevations)!  
The surface area of land on the planet is about [150,000,000 km2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth), so in principle we would need to add cover onto 42% of the current land (or we could take soil from deep ocean floors to landfill 1/5th of the oceans!) in order to plant enough trees to solve the problem.

This also assumes that the 13 pounds (5.9 kg) of carbon figure is for mature forests, rather than for growing trees (see comments for further discussion). If this value is for young developing trees, it would indicate less be attainable in the longrun. If the 13 pounds is for a developed forest, perhaps a greater amount could be removed in early years as a temporary quicker fix.

There is also the problem that forested land is likely to have a lower albedo than the land surface that it covers, and hence the planet will reflect less sunlight back into space which would lead to some extra warming, so we would also need to compensate for that somehow. Apparently [about 26% of Earth's land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_area) is already covered with forests. I rather doubt over half of the uncovered land surface is suitable for new forests, the continents have large bands either side of the equator that are generally too arid, and the regions close to the poles are too cold.

In short, it isn't going to work, even with the most generous assumptions about forest CO2 exchanges (unless of course I have made an arithmetic error, which is definitely a possibility).

> **Comments:**
> **username_14**: The forest growth rate is too low. And Peatlands are allready filling 2/3 of the gap; http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=523&ArticleID=5723&l=en You need maybe 15% forest to do the job. Currently we have 30%.  
> **username_15**: "The forest growth rate is too low. " evidence? "And Peatlands are allready filling 2/3 of the gap; " as far as I can see, the web page you cite does not support that conclusion, especially the part that starts ""Permafrost and steppe peatlands are already being impacted by climate change,"  
> **username_14**: Here's an English paper for Forest growth; http://www.forestresearchgroup.com/Newsletters/V8No2.pdf the growth the peak is 8.48 tn/acre, average around 4-5 tn/acre in presented forests. (tn ->biomass)  
> **username_15**: (1) that paper is discussing the growth rate of the tree, trees are not 100% carbon by weight. (2) the article begins by pointing out that you can't expect this rate from a stand of trees year on year, so it explicitly refutes your use of that figure.  The growth rate of mature forest is much lower, and they are near carbon neutral as primary production is more or less completely offset by decay and respiration.  
> **username_14**: See my own answer below. If you are planning to plant trees to harvest carbon, you might want to do it correctly. And really harvest the carbon; mean the trees.  
> **username_17**: @username_15 I tried to add more consistently SI units but I couldn't match them.  Did you mix up mi² and km²?  I end up with >100% forest cover.  Also, this would be needed *every year*, no?  
> **username_18**: Please re-read this "so this equates to an area of 62,917,471 square miles (162,955,502 km²). The surface area of the land on the planet is 148,940,000 km2, so we could in principle solve the global warming problem by covering a bit of 42% of the Earths landmass with forests"  
> **username_18**: Is this "13 lbs is 5.896 kg, so you need 169.6 trees per metric tonne of emissions" refering to 5.8kg of carbon captured per year?  
> **username_15**: @username_18 I'm sorry, I don't know what you are trying to point out in your first comment.  According to the source linked in the original question "Trees absorb carbon dioxide and potentially harmful gasses, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, from the air and release oxygen. ... A healthy tree can store 13 pounds of carbon each year" the carbon in a tree primarily comes from CO2 from the atmosphere, so yes, this is 13lbs captured per year.  
> **username_18**: @ username_15 username_15 the land area needed is greater than the total surface area on Earth based on the unit you provided. 162,955,502 km² > 148,940,000 km2  
> **username_15**: @username_18 ah, well spotted, I obviously was comparing the miles^2 figure with the km^2 figure (will check and correct later), many thanks!  
> **username_19**: @username_20: can you further explain what math brought about your changes?  
> **username_20**: @username_19 not much really, I just noticed that the previous 42% figure was due to a miles^2/km^2 division, while the km^2 figures show that the required forest area is larger than Earth's land surface....darn imperial units :)  
> **username_19**: @username_20 I went back and checked the math... looks like username_15 put the wrong units on the number (as other comments noted).  That should clear it up now, I believe.  (His percent was right, his units were wrong, leading to the confusion).  Feel free to check it.  Thanks for trying to take the initiative after seeing issues, it's good to have it fixed up.  
> **username_20**: @username_19 great job! I didn't get that far in checking the maths, I just tried to divide mi2/km2 and got that 42% and assumed that was the case...so there is still hope...or maybe not ;)  
> **username_5**: This article which is featured by Google in its preview says a tree can take 1 ton carbon dioxide in 40 years which is 25 kg / 55 pounds per year (that's 4 times more co2 and 4 times less area/trees) projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm .  
> **username_15**: @username_5 I think that is for a growing tree, not for a mature forest, which is what you would need to solve the problem of climate change in the long run, rather than just putting a temporary dent in it.  It is also a maximum figure, not an average.  n.b. both articles are from the same site.  

---

### Answer by username_11 on 2019-02-21. Score: 10

This question is from 2014 with answers from 2015. Just to add the point of view of some research that has been done since.

In essence, new calculations show that NCS (natural climate solutions: a combination of land management, forestation, etc):

> ...can provide over
> one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now
> and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C.
>
> Source: Griscom et al (2017), *Natural climate solutions*, PNAS, <https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114>

However!

Turns out that trees, other than sequestering carbon, also emit volatile organic compounds (VOC) that act as greenhouse gases. Therefore, the answer isn't as simple as planting trees.

Quoting some recent articles on the subject:

> Many scientists applaud the push for expanding forests, but some urge caution. They argue that forests have many more-complex and uncertain climate impacts than policymakers, environmentalists and even some scientists acknowledge. Although trees cool the globe by taking up carbon through photosynthesis, they also emit a complex potpourri of chemicals, some of which warm the planet. The dark leaves of trees can also raise temperatures by absorbing sunlight. Several analyses in the past few years suggest that these warming effects from forests could partially or fully offset their cooling ability.
>
> Source: Gabriel Popkin (2019), *How much can forests fight climate change?*, Nature, <http://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00122-z>

and

> That doesn’t mean that all forests cool the planet, however. Researchers have known for decades that tree leaves absorb more sunlight than do other types of land cover, such as fields or bare ground. Forests can reduce Earth’s surface albedo, meaning that the planet reflects less incoming sunlight back into space, leading to warming. This effect is especially pronounced at higher latitudes and in mountainous or dry regions, where slower-growing coniferous trees with dark leaves cover light-coloured ground or snow that would otherwise reflect sunlight. Most scientists agree, however, that tropical forests are clear climate coolers: trees there grow relatively fast and transpire massive amounts of water that forms clouds, two effects that help to cool the climate.
>
> Source: Gabriel Popkin (2019)

and

> Atmospheric chemist Nadine Unger, then at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, conducted one of the first global studies examining one part of this exchange: the influence of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, emitted by trees. These include isoprene, a small hydrocarbon that can warm the globe in several ways. It can react with nitrogen oxides in the air to form ozone — a potent climate-warming gas when it resides in the lower atmosphere. Isoprene can also lengthen the lifetime of atmospheric methane — another greenhouse gas. Yet isoprene can have a cooling influence, too, by helping to produce aerosol particles that block incoming sunlight.
>
> Source: Gabriel Popkin (2019)

and

> Plants take up carbon dioxide and release volatile organic compounds
> (VOCs), in a similar way to how other organisms breathe in oxygen and
> exhale CO2. These VOCs are oxidized in the atmosphere and then
> contribute substantially to the burden of tiny particles suspended in
> the air, which are known as aerosols. Aerosols produced from VOCs are
> known as secondary organic aerosols (SOAs), and affect both air
> quality and Earth’s climate. The total rate of SOA production was
> thought to be the sum of the individual rates associated with the
> oxidation of each VOC. But writing in Nature, McFiggans et al.1 show
> that a more accurate description is needed to improve the
> representation of SOAs in computational models of air quality and
> climate.
>
> Fangqun Yu (2019), *Atmospheric reaction networks affecting climate are more complex than was thought*, Nature, <https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00263-1>

Sources of the articles:

[one](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114); [two](https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00122-z); [three](https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00263-1)

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: Do you know of any research on how the presence of photosynthesising (eg algae) and calcifying organisms (eg coccolithophorids and foraminifera) in the ocean - of which the Earth is mostly covered - act as a "correcting force" on atmospheric carbon?  

---

### Answer by username_12 on 2015-04-26. Score: 1

At our current rate of global emissions - around 10 billion tonnes per year, PWC's 2013 report estimated that we will exceed the "safe" limit of 2 degrees warming by 2034. Trees planted in tropical areas sequester an average of 22.6 Kg of carbon per annum. NASA estimates that there are currently 400 billion trees globally. The addition of just 7 billion trees (one for every person on Earth) would therefore give us a further 16 years of safe climate at our current rate of emissions. During this time one would hope we will be able to increase renewable energy use, energy efficiency etc so as to reduce our current emissions to sustainable levels. 7 billion is vastly less than the 1,555 billion quoted above and could make all the difference.

> **Comments:**
> **username_13**: I don't think your numbers are quite correct.   Trees can absorb 22.6 KG of CO2, not Carbon - source:  https://www.americanforests.org/discover-forests/tree-facts/   or 48 lbs in the article I posted, while growing.    That's a bit under 6.2 KGs of Carbon.  7 billion trees x 6.2 KGs = 43.4 billion KG or about 48 million tons of carbon.    I don't know how a 0.48% reduction would buy 16 years, but that seems to be what you're suggesting, unless I got my numbers wrong.  

---

### Answer by username_14 on 2015-11-18. Score: 0

Question;
**Given that, how many trees would I need to plant to solve the global climate change crisis? Should I optimize for a specific type of tree, or would pine work as well as oak or black walnut?**

First, you need to think it as a forest. In a forest there are also trees which lose the game of evolution in addition to trees that win.

Second, you need to look where (in terms of climate) your forest is, and what's its soil. This defines the tree type.

Third, you need to cut your forest on time to optimize it' growth rate. 26 years is optimum, so roughly 4 times a century.

This way you can [reach growth rates like 4.8 tn/ha/year in Finland](http://www.puuproffa.fi/PuuProffa_2012/7/puun-kasvu/metsan-kasvu) or  
[5.16 tons/acre/year in the USA.](http://www.forestresearchgroup.com/Newsletters/V8No2.pdf) I am not sure about the unit used in this source, but if their ton is 907 kg and an acre is 4046.85 m$^2$, this results in 11.56 tn/ha/year.

If the used carbon amount is $9.2 \times 10^9$ tons, and [half of wood weight is carbon](http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1984/pette84a.pdf) then you need $1.6 \times 10^9$ ha or 16 000 000 km$^2$ of forest.

[There is 39 500 000 km$^2$ of forest in the world.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_land_area)
If 40% of it is used optimally, it would be enough at present rates. The CO$\_2$ concentration is not a problem; human population growth is.

> **Comments:**
> **username_15**: So what do you do with the wood once harvested to prevent the carbon returning to the atmosphere?  
> **username_14**: Well, you need to figure the reasonable usage for the wood by your self. I don't know why you need to prevent it to return to the atmosphere. I think it's enough as the circulation is in balance.  
> **username_15**: It is only in balance as long as the carbon doesn't get back to the atmosphere.  You are forgetting that if you allow the wood to decay or be burnt then that represents an increase in emissions into the atmosphere and the system is no longer in balance.  
> **username_14**: @username_15 No. It was in balance also when the coal was on the ground. Now the same coal is on houses, on living biomass, paper, food, in Biodiesel stored in the tanks. Just calculate the population growth; + 7 000 000 000 since 1800; 62 kg average, 18.5 Carbon; 11.5 kg each, totals 80.5 million tons of coal. Then all the animals, food plants everything. Photosynthesis takes 100 000-115 000 Million metric tons of carbon into Biomass every year. its 10 x more than man does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis Your "problem" is not within the measurable accuracy.  
> **username_15**: @JokelaTurbine You are making an elementary error by ignoring that fact that it is the difference between total uptake and total emissions that govern atmospheric concentrations.  Anthropogenic emissions are large compared with the difference in natural emissions and natural uptake.  If you use forresting to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, but then burn the wood, it is releasing all the carbon back into the atmosphere that was taken out by photosynthesis, and thus has no effect on the balance of emissions and uptake, and hence won't solve anything.  
> **username_14**: @username_15 Thank's for chat. I do not practice evangelism. If economy growths, the central bank must supply more money, new money. If the total biomass amount growths, the additional coal must also come form somewhere; new coal. If the present atmospherical carbon consumption; 100 Mrd tons, can be doubled by plants, the 10 Mrd. tons produced by man, just can't make any kind of difference. If you believe such, I am fine. Please do your best to reduce your own emission, but please respect also my right to not pay to your church.  
> **username_15**: "I do not practice evangelism" " my right to not pay to your church." it is a shame that discussions of climate so rapidly decay into this sort of rhetoric.  I have pointed out the error in your accounting of carbon fluxes, and you have not addressed it.  
> **username_14**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/31879/discussion-between-jokelaturbine-and-username_15).  
> **username_15**: lets not, I have found that when people start using religion based rhetorical digs the chances of having a rational discussion of science tend to be rather limited.  
> **username_14**: @username_15 Any way you want. You should ask your own question to clear up the facts about where the Carbon is located in the world. Though these are easily available on wiki; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#Main_components  
> **username_13**: @JokelaTurbine where the carbon is located in the world and how much carbon is in the atmosphere are two entirely different questions.   username_15 username_15's point is straight forward and your answer is lacking for not addressing it.  Forests take CO2 out of the atmosphere but also return CO2 to the Atmosphere.  The rate of tree growth isn't important.  It's the carbon storage that's important.  If the trees are cut down every 25 years, you need to account for what happens after they are cut down.  By not doing so, you're not answering the question.  

---

### Answer by username_16 on 2020-11-09. Score: -1

None, except tropical young trees. Overall, trees are carbon neutral. Wood/biomass has to be geologically sequestered to store carbon in the long term. That requires a tree with

* a long life span (sequoia, cypress, etc)
* and growing in swampy conditions (to hold the remnants in sediment)


---

