Another scheme that avoids at ALL costs addressing the fundamental reality we must stop pumping carbon and methane into the atmosphere. As you point out, carbon sequestration by trees is at best temporary, the carbon WILL be returned to the atmosphere. Planting huge swathes of young trees does nothing for the immediate problem. It takes 20 to 30 years for a tree to mature to become a significant absorber of carbon. Additionally, promoting monocultural forests is harmful to failing biodiversity as the 6th extinction accelerates. Ridiculous stuff that's easy to foist off on the public and politically palatable.
To successfully "bury forests" you would have to waste even more energy to chip them to remove maximum entrained air. Is anaerobic combustion possible? That's how you make cyanide from wool. In any case, the oxygen in the CO2 in the trees MUST be returned to the atmosphere. Calling cutting and replanting of trees "sustainable" ignores the mass of mineral nutrients taken away with every "crop" of trees. A forest is not a large area of trees, it is a biome built by succession of plants resulting in a climax equilibrium. Hey, people, leave them trees alone! Burying forests under the ocean floor risks disturbing the buried methyl hydrates - you want to see REAL global warming, start messing those up! What fools these mortals be! Then there's Bill Gates with his new reactor design, never tried before, in the middle of Wyoming. If it's so safe, why so far from Microsoft campus?
Another scheme that avoids at ALL costs addressing the fundamental reality we must stop pumping carbon and methane into the atmosphere. As you point out, carbon sequestration by trees is at best temporary, the carbon WILL be returned to the atmosphere. Planting huge swathes of young trees does nothing for the immediate problem. It takes 20 to 30 years for a tree to mature to become a significant absorber of carbon. Additionally, promoting monocultural forests is harmful to failing biodiversity as the 6th extinction accelerates. Ridiculous stuff that's easy to foist off on the public and politically palatable.
I have commented on forest "thinning" at https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/all-your-forests-are-at-risk
To successfully "bury forests" you would have to waste even more energy to chip them to remove maximum entrained air. Is anaerobic combustion possible? That's how you make cyanide from wool. In any case, the oxygen in the CO2 in the trees MUST be returned to the atmosphere. Calling cutting and replanting of trees "sustainable" ignores the mass of mineral nutrients taken away with every "crop" of trees. A forest is not a large area of trees, it is a biome built by succession of plants resulting in a climax equilibrium. Hey, people, leave them trees alone! Burying forests under the ocean floor risks disturbing the buried methyl hydrates - you want to see REAL global warming, start messing those up! What fools these mortals be! Then there's Bill Gates with his new reactor design, never tried before, in the middle of Wyoming. If it's so safe, why so far from Microsoft campus?