I would assume that the average American is emiting way more than the average human, so you can't just multiply it up by earth's population.

Do they have to be? I remember that a lot of people in the last 50 years or so have been trying to apply permaculture principles on forestry (like the Fukuoka food forest).

As for the carbon stability, the forest renews itself, so if you plant trees in an area where there were none before, the carbon captured the forest itself is pretty permanent. If you want to further capture carbon, you can always cut the trees and use them for timber, and eventually pyrolyse the wood to prevent decomposition and put it in the ground (which can increase soil quality).

I think combining peat bogs with plantation forests might provide a workable solution. Trees sequester best early in their lives when they're growing fastest iirc then cut them down and place them in a bog where they don't decompose.

> There are challenges with tree planting as well. Tree plantations tend to be monocultures which crowd out native species. Also the carbon stored in trees is typically only stable for 40-50 years due to fire, tree death and decomposition.

That's a very limited view on a system that is regenerative by design. You're right that most are planted as mono-cultures which present some issues, and their individual life cycle spans that much time on average. But the idea is that a living ecosystem/forest that is not only able to sequester carbon via tress but also allow for other life to thrive (moss, grass, flowers etc...) throughout its entire existence is a net positive, and has much more efficacy than creating some rigged Market as seen with carbon credits that obscure the scam through layers of obfuscation. We've seen how quickly Nature can correct itself when Human activity is significantly curtailed, it stands to reason that with some adjustments to commerce and the labour market we can enhance this with such undertakings with efficient C3/C4 or CAM plants to accommodate the environment its planted in. Graham Handcock in his book 'America Before' argues that the Amazon was the planned undertaking of Ancient people that not only provided them with sustenance and medicine, but as a result of it and unbeknownst to them would serve as the lungs of the Earth for millennia after their collapse.

I've come to the conclusion that while Market based solutions are favourable means where ever possible, the reality is when it comes to Climate Change and Environmental factors Humans are just to myopic to have it as the sole basis for solutions.

Everyone involved just ends up colluding with one another for personal gain and only a fraction of the progress is made while still being touted as a monumental success when in reality if Nation-State actually fulfilled their supposed purpose they'd see it as a matter of National Security and allot a significant portion as a deterrent to unsustainable population influxes.

Humanitarian crises from environmental disasters and the displacement that follows takes a massive toll on its infrastructure and economy, not to mention the resentment from the local populace that has to deal with the increase in poverty and crime to the their community that often follows from these hapless people's plight. The mass migration to the EU from Africa was devastating to see first hand, so many people lived in the parks and other public spaces because the country that would take them in could not accommodate them in a humane manner in time or at all and they slipped through the cracks and tried to make due however possible. Many just ended up succumbing to substance abuse and crime after the trauma and stress of their lives being in shambles, often through no fault of their own as a victim of war and environmental damage (Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh).

I'm totally for open borders, as we should view ourselves as Human beings before anything else; but the nation-state model has proven itself to be entirely inadequate at handling COIVD, why should it be in charge of regulating something like this without succumbing to the same corruption we've seen in stock market, banking sectors?

At this point we should see this as an opportunity to give many young students and young adults afflicted by ever diminishing opportunities in the traditional labor market some much valuable and applicable work experience and the opportunity to get involved in massive environmental undertakings that will be necessary and commonplace in their lifetime to help combat the affects of Climate Change from previous generations. Investing as much as needed to that end will play dividends for the entire Earth that will outlive most nation-states (~200 years for the most prosperous ones and much less for the rest), and the truth is you can do a lot with limited resources with the right motivation, these movements really lacked effective Human Capital just as much, if not more, than monetary Capital.

I did it in my 20s, and it really helped me learn a great deal and it refined my skill set which allowed me to be able to move into several Industries that I took interest in but couldn't break into because of a specialized university education.

I was at a food drive where the goal went from feeding 10,000 families to 20,000 in a matter of days, it was a logistical nightmare and was not really planned very well with not much structure to it besides some COVID screening, and a time to show up. So I thought I'd put some of my previous experience as a manager in large scale events like this and in logistics in the automotive Industry to the test while applying some of the theoretical six sigma/lean methods I learned from my Supply Chain courses this year and all it took was a ~3 hours into my time on the assembly line before we 5x our output when I arrived. We went from 20 something people running at an unsustainable pace being burned out to make 1/5 of the output due to inefficient assembly lines and methods to about 35 strategically placed people on that line and just streamlining the process and clearing up the workflow area to yield a 5x increase.

It was hard, and it took a toll on my body as I could feel all the injuries and the experience earned from years before, but I could tell it was worth it when we not only met the goal but had actually exceeded the target and had enough excess to donate more than expected due to a reduction of loss according to the event organizers.

There is no one thing that will "fix everything".

This will be solved by many small things adding up.

> takes real effort which then needs to be paid for

Verses the many climate change options that are free and without any effort?

Or topple the trees and cover them with something that blocks air but which the next layer can be planted atop of? Seems like an extremely difficult problem.

That's true, but you don't need to bury the whole tree. You can fell the tree, gassify it, and get a steady stream of fuel and pure carbon. The process is exothermic and produces enough energy to be self sustaining and produce excess fuel.

Bury the carbon and use the gas to produce energy and you have a forest that is a net reducer of carbon and a net positive energy producer.