Planting a Tree is almost entirely symbolic.... or aesthetic...

[omgwtfbyobbq]

How about growing wild grass or some other fast growth plants, cutting it down, burying it deep and planting again. Will it fossilize ? Or does the advent of termite means for all intents and purposes no more mineral coal is being made (plants that are fossilized become coal, animals/bacteria become oil/gas reserves) ?

I think the answer is, no dice, but I would like to be sure anyways.

It could rot and generate methane depending on the local climate/soil. If you bury it deep enough I think it would work.

Biochar is a pretty good way to keep carbon underground without having to bury deep enough to avoid rotting/methane.

Biochar - Wikipedia

If you have a relatively fast growing tree or trees, and trim ~100lbs/year of biomass from it, you could sequester about 65lbs of CO2 equivalent per year by creating biochar. It's not a huge amount, but it's still something.

https://www.broward.org/NaturalReso...ts/Calculating CO2 Sequestration by Trees.pdf

 

[adiggs]

Yep... planting new 'forests' is not the same as preserving the existing ones...

In Washington there are areas where the land is 'private' but it's required to be used for forestry. By law you can't clear more than a small percentage for your home and the remainder must be maintained as a 'working forest'. This allows the timber industry to have the resources available to continue producing lumber while preserving areas like Olympic National Forest.

Slightly different case in Brazil though... they generally want to clear trees to raise cows not more trees One of the reasons I no longer eat beef....

Similar mechanism also alive and well in Oregon. It looks, to this interested observer, that industry and the forest in Oregon have achieved a reasonable stable level of production and regrowth in the forests. I maybe off - I remember reading that it's 40 years to harvest from planting, on average, in Oregon for Douglas Fir.

I KNOW that there's a lot of log trucks on the country roads around here, especially as you get closer to the coast, hauling logs from wherever to ports and plants.

 

[macpacheco]

Yep... planting new 'forests' is not the same as preserving the existing ones...

In Washington there are areas where the land is 'private' but it's required to be used for forestry. By law you can't clear more than a small percentage for your home and the remainder must be maintained as a 'working forest'. This allows the timber industry to have the resources available to continue producing lumber while preserving areas like Olympic National Forest.

Slightly different case in Brazil though... they generally want to clear trees to raise cows not more trees One of the reasons I no longer eat beef....

Brazil is a corrupt country, we're in the middle of a an attempt at a peaceful revolution against corruption.
Its very hard since those are multi century problems.
The law just isn't being followed in most cases.
Nearly half of Brazils population over 25 yrs old doesn't have a high school degree. Uneducated people tend to have little respect for environmental laws.
Don't waste your time nwdiver, you're not going to shame me any more than I'm already ashamed. Brazil sucks when the issue is conserving the land. More than preserving trees for timber, we need to preserve trees around areas where rivers start.
USA = so called developed country
Brazil = so called developing country
Remember that difference. Usually the main one is developing countries don't have very mature political/juridical systems. Corruption is a common theme among developing countries.