Eco activists such as Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates have thrown their weight, and checkbooks, behind the practice of cutting down trees and burying them to address fears over carbon emissions. Gates is well known for his attempts of addressing his climate concerns—from buying up vast swaths of U.S. farmland to backing wild-card experiments such as solar geo-engineering and his latest rant is criticizing tree planting as a viable means of reducing CO2.
In an interview with NY Times reporter David Gelles, Mr. Gates responded dismissively to the idea that planting more trees can reverse adverse climate effects. "That's complete nonsense ... I mean, are we the science people, or are we the idiots?" Mr. Gates asked rhetorically.
Really? I remember in my high school science class studying how trees absorb CO2 and put out oxygen. So, where does he get his science from?
Through his foundation Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Mr. Gates is a part of the $6.6 million seed investor pool backing Kodama Systems in its proposal to remove trees in California's fire-challenged woodlands and bury them in Nevada to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2).
"We must dramatically accelerate forest thinning treatments," the Boston-based firm says on its website. Kodama calls itself a "technology-driven forest restoration service.”
So, why in the world would you want to bury the very trees that are absorbing the CO2?
Critics are quick to point out holes in the logic surrounding the claimed benefits of culling trees and burying them.
"This is a spectacularly bad and counter-productive idea," said Chad Hanson, a research ecologist and co-founder of the John Muir Project. He says existing trees and forests are "by far, our best and most effective means" to reduce any "excess of carbon in our atmosphere.”
Additionally, selective culling poses a risk to old-growth trees, which research indicates capture vastly more atmospheric carbon than their younger counterparts.
Living trees store a massive amount of atmospheric carbon. One estimate puts the CO2 storage value of U.S. forests and grasslands at 866 million metric tons per year. For perspective, that equates to the annual emissions from 50 million gasoline- or diesel-fueled vehicles.
"Trees continue to sequester and store more and more carbon as they get older, and this is true no matter how old they get,” Mr. Hanson said in countering that point. “Cutting existing trees and burying them eliminates their ability to draw down and reduce atmospheric carbon."
No in-depth analysis exists on the asserted benefits or secondary environmental effects of tree thinning and debris storage.
If you would like to read more arguments on each side, you will find an great article Here.