Planting trees to sequester carbon emissions

[benedmonds]

Does anyone have any links to upto date information or papers.

 

I have a client who wants to plant enough trees to offset 1 ton carbon per year. 

 

Cannell 1999 estimates averaged out over 100 years  you would need 42 widely spaced oak trees or 0.37ha of conifers over 55 years.. 

 

[Hoolio206]

What about planting giant redwoods?  They grow meahassive!

some for sale on eBay.

 

 

[sandspider]

A few thoughts on this (not mine, but some worked examples relating to flight CO2 emissions) here:

 

How many trees do I need to plant to offset the carbon dioxide released in a flight? - Quora

WWW.QUORA.COM

 

[Bolt]

10 hours ago, sandspider said:

A few thoughts on this (not mine, but some worked examples relating to flight CO2 emissions) here:

 

How many trees do I need to plant to offset the carbon dioxide released in a flight? - Quora

WWW.QUORA.COM

 

 

I didn't see the bit where they calculated that after 70 to 100 years all the trees had died and the carbon was back out in the atmosphere. 

 

 

[Bolt]

On 16/08/2019 at 08:58, benedmonds said:

Does anyone have any links to upto date information or papers.

 

I have a client who wants to plant enough trees to offset 1 ton carbon per year. 

 

Cannell 1999 estimates averaged out over 100 years  you would need 42 widely spaced oak trees or 0.37ha of conifers over 55 years.. 

 

Most important point is:

If you can separate a gullible client from their cash, and end up with a nice planting project to boot, go for it (a man needs to eat!)

 

However, surely everyone has simply realised it's a massive con trick / head-in-the-sand-exercise. 

 

Your client should plant trees because they love trees being planted.  If they feel guilty about releasing carbon, they should leave the carbon deep underground. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Bolt

[benedmonds]

1 hour ago, Bolt said:

However, surely everyone has simply realised it's a massive con trick / head-in-the-sand-exercise. 

 

Your client should plant trees because they love trees being planted.  If they feel guilty about releasing carbon, they should leave the carbon deep underground. 

This client is is a big organisation obvoiusly trying to look green. If we get paid and plant some trees then everyone is a winner..

[Jack.P]

bit of a guess but i reckon half an acre of newly planted Hybrid poplar will absorb around 1.5 tons rising to nearer 5 tons as they get nearer to ten year old 

[markieg31]

Have they ever thought that permemant pasture also sequesters carbon. Infact i think that you can do more with an extensive grazing system carbon wise.

[Lucan]

On 16/08/2019 at 09:58, benedmonds said:

Does anyone have any links to upto date information or papers.

 

I have a client who wants to plant enough trees to offset 1 ton carbon per year. 

 

Cannell 1999 estimates averaged out over 100 years  you would need 42 widely spaced oak trees or 0.37ha of conifers over 55 years.. 

 

First, I wouldn't worry about Cannell's papers being out of date. The methodology is still sound.

 

Second, although species is important, there are other factors that can be just as, if not more important such as yield class (Bateman and Lovett, 2000) and forest management (Jandl et al., 2007).

 

For specific values and figures (and general reading) I would recommend;

• The social value of carbon sequestered in Great Britain's woodlands (Brainaird et al., 2009)
• Carbon sequestration in the trees, products and soils of forest plantations: an analysis using UK examples (Dewar and Cannell, 1992)
• Long term effects of whole tree harvesting on soil carbon and nutrient sustainability in the UK (Vanguelova et al., 2010)
• The carbon pool in a British semi-natural woodland (Patenaude et al., 2003)
• Carbon storage and sequestration in the forests of Northern Ireland (Cannell et al., 1996)
• Estimating and valuing the carbon sequestered in softwood and hardwoodtrees, timber products and forest soils in Wales (Bateman and Lovett, 2000)
• Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) forests in Atlantic Europe: changes in forest management and possible consequences for carbon sequestration (Mason and Perks, 2011)
• Carbon  pools and sequestration in forest ecosystems in Britain (Cannell and Milne, 1995)
• How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? (Jandl et al., 2007)

 

In short though I believe the summary from Dewar and Cannell (1992) is still applicable today;

 

      "If the objective is to store carbon rapidly in the short term and achieve high carbon storage in the long term, Populus plantations growing on fertile land (2.7 m spacing, 26-year rotations, Yield Class 12) were the best option examined. If the objective is to achieve high carbon storage in the medium term (50 years) without regard to the initial rate of storage, then plantations of conifers of any species with above-average Yield Classes would suffice. In the long term (100 years), broadleaved plantations of oak and beech store as much carbon as conifer plantations. Mini-rotations (10 years) do not achieve a high carbon storage."

 

[the village idiot]

On 07/10/2019 at 21:28, Bolt said:

 

I didn't see the bit where they calculated that after 70 to 100 years all the trees had died and the carbon was back out in the atmosphere. 

 

 

This would depend entirely on what any final crop was used for (furniture/building/future fossil fuel replacement), and whether once forested the land was kept under tree cover into the future.