Ask HN: Why don't you plant a Giant Sequoia today?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207

A previous discussion on the empress tree. More climate options for growing. The top comment on the thread:

> So basically each american would have to cultivate about 0.196 acre of empress trees (792 sq meters, or 8522 sq foot) to become carbon neutral.

For me, I'm looking into where I could put some.

I'm very torn with this. Empress trees are invasive.

> The General Sherman removed 1438.892 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air. Divided by the American yearly CO2 footprint of 16.6 metric tons ,we get 86.7 years of CO2 sequestered in a single tree!

Although it took around 2500 years to do so. If your calculations are right, the American should presumably plant 30 of these trees rather than one in order to have a more real-time impact. This is also assuming that each tree planted will follow something like the growth trajectory of the largest tree in the world.

I'm also not sure that this calculation is right, for example because using the approximate mass of the tree as the amount of CO₂ fixed by the tree neglects the contribution of the H₂O that was also an ingredient for the tree's cellulose content.

(I fully support people planting sequoia trees, though!)

Hope these two articles help with:

https://www.airqualitynews.com/2018/07/30/plants-and-trees-n...

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/how-many-trees-to-plant-to-s...

Indeed the tree and where we plant them is important

And today when some countries like Switzerland have carbon capture technologies why more trees which needs more watter?

For the host of reasons listed in other comments (and others too), it will never pass that everyone plants a giant sequoia. This means the “ideal” proposed solution is not possible.

Therefore, why not aim for a more realistic goal: 1. plant trees in vacant spaces (such as highway medians), any kind of tree 2. Plant 1 extra tree instead of more lawn in your yard.

I’d guess these goals are more attainable and though would not offer a full solution, would be better than no option.

I love trees, well most trees, not a fan of pine trees, as they seem to plant those everywhere ....

So after the tree grows, and captures the carbon, then what? Do you let it die, rot and release its carbon?

If carbon is the problem, because the earths total carbon is pretty much constant, then is not the problem how to get rid of carbon, or at least keep it in a captive state?

All the carbon, was captured in the ground as oil. Why not put carbon back in the empty oil wells? As in yard waste?

I'd love a sequoia forest, but:

Not suitable for my climate.

Planting trees isn't the problem - the challenge is having them live to maturity.

Bigger trees store more carbon more rapidly, as they perform more photosynthesis (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...) so work to preserve existing big trees.

Where are you going to plant these millions of trees? What existing land suitable for sequoia growth is not currently full of sequoias? If that land is suitable, but not forested, why? If it's being used for something else, what are you going to displace?

Like many feel-good solutions to major issues, there are a host of reasons why they're not already happening or why they wouldn't actually solve the problem.

Can you link the amazon listing?