>Wouldn't carbon capture
- It takes trees decades to reach optimum uptake levels
- It requires more than just a tree to make a healthy trees. Fungi in the soil, insects, adequate rainfall and all sorts of other biodiversity
- [1] Young trees absorb around 13lbs a year of CO2 (this is going to vary considerably by species) and at a decade old around 48lbs a year
>better solution than slowing down production
It appears in the past 2 decades CO2 emissions are up 25%. In the past decade about 6%. [2]
>I don't want to be too pessimistic, but even if the US and EU become carbon neutral tomorrow,
Where did I say the US and EU. Climate change isn't a single country's problem, or a dozen countries, it's a human problem. Planting trees is being 'too optimistic'
>China is about to overtake US as the biggest air travel market in 2020
Between 1986 and 2012 aviation fuel usage more than DOUBLED going from 2.6 million barrels a day to 5.3 million barrels a day [3], and IIRC from past research for another thread earlier this year. 42 gallons per barrel.
1 gallon of jet fuel will prorduce about 20lbs of CO2 [4]. If we average out the above tree figures we get 30.5 lbs a year per tree. The United States alone used 17.866 billion gallons for air travel in 2018 [5] meaning, if my math is right, 11.71 billion trees are needed just to handle that. Just between 2017 and 2018 the United States alone used half a billion more gallons.
Trees aren't a solution. They are a dollar store bandaid that you've removed 3 times and them tried to press back onto your skin after you got out of the pool.
[1] http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc
[3] https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=jet-fuel
[4] https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-...
[5] https://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp