Hypothesis for carbon dioxide level reduction

[Capsid]

I'm not an ecologist, so tell me what's wrong with this, please. Carbon dioxide levels increasing through the burning of fossil fuels. Plants utilise carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Trees lock up carbon in wood. Plant millions of trees and lower carbon dioxide levels.

Would it take too long for the trees to grow? Could we plant enough trees?

 

[patnray]

Here's one problem: Even if you could plant enough trees to actually reduce CO2 levels, the CO2 is only temporarily "locked" in the wood. If the wood is burned or allowed to decay the CO2 will be released again.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well that's seems like a good , logical idea. The problem is as normal, the devil is in the details.From a political and funding point of view, I don't have the patience.

There are also scientific problems, which they themselves can (and do ) become political. The most obvious is that the filter-trees-must be placed in proximity to the pollution. The reality is there are generally no great amount of trees in industrial areas and by the time the pollution could reach any significant forest, it has risen to where the trees have no effector are overwhelemed. I remember an older Nova program where the trees on that western face of the Appalachians were dieing and the source was traced to acid rain emitted by factories in the the mid west.

 

[Diamond]

Carbon dioxide is rising, but since the anthropogenic component is a small fraction, it makes no difference to a rise that would have happened anyway.

Yes, eventually the fertilizer effect of carbon dioxide causes more and more plant growth and the level of carbon dioxide levels off and then declines.

Quite why carbon dioxide has been turned into a pariah when its the vital lifeblood of the Earth's biosphere has never been explained.