worldwoodproject

Sorry but couldn't find data about reforestation proceedings. They are more about forrest managment. But thanks for the answer. Yes sure, I should give more background. I would like to know how to grow enough forest to offset the human eCO² production while the forest would be still in growth phase and sinks CO². I do know that the CO² storage ability progresses toward a point where it reaches equilibrium but before this point there is a use in planting forest for CCS reasons. What kind of forest is needed for this is part of the question as well as where to put it and how to handle the logistics. For all these questions there are scientific disciplines out there with ppl who now khow to answer parts of these questions.

Dear forum. I would like to know what would be, from a scientific point of view, the best way to reforestation in a large scale, say at last 5 million square kilometres, within a timeframe of 50 years?

Can you pleas point me towards a source for this? How much do they capture and store? As https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59204-4#Tab1 ¹ points out this might vary by species used. But an interesting point anyway. Waiting for the source. As effective as what? Plus yes, bogs are great. Don't want to disturb them. Everywhere. The main concept is to grow a lot of forest as fast as possible, so fertile ground shout be prioritized. To not compete for utilised agricultural land, possible alternatives are deforested areas, barren agricultural land or pastures. There are 32 million km² of pastures for example². And I want to use a mix of fast growing trees that still grow fast at the location like poplar or Paulownia and local trees. As I envision 9/10 km² being short rotation coppicis as agroforestrys the paybac would start at year 5 after planting. Totally agree. But how to facilitate this? I don't know? But I have an idea of how to sepuester large masses of carbon. Janice I am here, searching for advice and a sintific evaluation of this. Are there any scientists here with an agricultural background? ¹Krause, J.R., Cameron, C., Arias-Ortiz, A. et al. Global seagrass carbon stock variability and emissions from seagrass loss. Nat Commun 16, 3798 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59204-4 ²ourworldindata.org/land-use

I don't intend it to be monoculture because mixed culture tend to be more resilient and more productive given the right mix. But I take your point that you don't think it is the best solution. Herding animals wont go away by themselfs. Either you pay farmers to forsake pasture land ore else? Not sure how to archive this.. but it would still be cheaper I guess. But you still need to manage the land. By cold burning you refer to pyrolysis? While a good idea you are restricted by where the understory is located at. You would need to collect it and transport it to an pyrolysis oven, wouldn't you? If so, forests tend to not be conected to infrastructure very well. There for my idea to bring the infrastructure into the forest. Which example are you refering to? Pyrolysis ovens get produced around the world for multiple purposes. Don't see the barrier there why the can't be mass produced. Why do you think so? I don't want to replace residential heating or power supply. I want to produce stable carbon on a massive scale. Most effective method I know is pyrolysis. (~50% carbon retained from biomass) How to feed them. Not with existing biomass to save existing natural habitats, so grow new one. The rest follows. If there are more effective methods to do so, I am eager to see them .

I agree with you. But I don't see where this is an unsolvable problem. It sure needs an initial financing, as most other businesses do. But there are life working sustainable short-rotation coppicis and biomass to energy businesses and agroforestrys. As stated above I don't invent new things, I just want to add existing working things together to support climat crisis fighting. And yes, just adding biomass will level out on a thirtain point. But by putting half the carbon into biochar/terra preta and replant the trees allows us to creep the balance in the big picture, effectively draw down carbon, improve soil quality, produce energy to sustain livable conditions and power tools. If there is construction wood as a by-product, so better. It is not meant as a this is the way, no straying from the pass. If there are better solutions.. that's why I am here. For the financing, here is the slide on it: How to.. ..afford this We create an non profit entity listed in all important stock exchanges with 2 trillion shares worth 1 € each. As it is for a good cause, there will be no fees for buying these shares. As this is a good cause investment, governments, pension funds etc. may invest in this. Dividende could be paid in CO² certificates. If you want. You can produce terra preta quite easy by digging a whole, throw biochar and biomass waste into it and let it rot for a while. While not as effective as a controlled laboratory environment, it is effective enough. Plus practice makes one better with time. And, the main goal is, to draw down carbon. So when after dozens of years we reach saturation of the 10 km² with highly fertile terra preta and can't improve the soil anymore we can talk about improving the neighbours soil as well. But it's not meant to be taken away. Thought I'd, to improve the agroforest part first. But forest cover loss is a cause of the climat crisis. How recovering this wouldn't help? This way of thinking would make denaturing and reforestation meaningless or am I holding it wrong? This is not a, stop all other things this is the only way thing. Have a multitude of ways to save the planet. Why does this so often slides towards a either or discussion. Why not do both. Reduce burning of fossil fuel and build up forest large scale. Totally agree it being effective for this scenario. Why not? There are live implementations of these to heat residential areas fed by short-rotation coppicis. And we speak about western level of energy need residential areas. What could you do with well modern engineered infrastructure. But produce stable carbon. Which is the main goal. It's a CCS project, not a power supply one. If there is a better way, please tell me. Honestly.

If you refere to the pyrolysis process, it is not energy net positive in the wood gets burned to biochar cycle because it burns the gas produced from the biomass during the pyrolysis process to keep up the temperature needed after an initial heating to the needed temperature. No it's not. I am not an engineer. I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but sometimes, it takes 50 years to take these and realise, you can just put them onto suitcases. The thought process was, how are we able to viably scale CCS to an industrial scale needed, because from an rough numbers standpoint, all the high-tech CCS methods are horse poop. Unfortunately the original post was cut of the URL to my presentation but you could access it with the topic title plus dot com. Anyway here is the slide: Where to.. ..put these villages? Everywhere. The main concept is to grow a lot of forest as fast as possible, so fertile ground shout be prioritized. To not compete for utilised agricultural land, possible alternatives are deforested areas, barren agricultural land or pastures. There are 32 million km² of pastures for example¹. ¹ourworldindata.org/land-use What I want to say by this is that is it not a greening the desert project (I am awed by how amazing they are, the green walls especially the Chinese one.) the world is in need of an effective use of resources. And I don't want to use any land hitting the above mentioned categories. I don't want to forest ancient meadows and that like.

I have written all this by myself, the slides and this post. The latter unfortunately during vacation on my phone. Regarding the next posts, this is not very effective as it makes it harder to thoroughly write it up. Plus you may have guessed, English is not my mother tongue. Mea culpa. .. to bridge the gap, we need to grow vegetables..

I assume this goes for natural grown forests. Short rotation coppices tend to be more densely packed. See for example https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/biomass-energy-resources/fuel/energy-crops-3/short-rotation-coppice/ where for 2 - 3 year rotations density is between 15.000 and 10.000 plants/ha. As my idea encompasses 5 year rotations the density is much less, plus the use of multiple tree species fitted to the local environment might influence it.

I did post it here because it touches a multiple of different disciplines. Please move it if it is in the wrong place. I try to flash out an idea I had recently to combat climate change. I did put it into a presentation you can access under url deleted I am going to break down every relevant page in this post with the science behind. I would like you to point out my errors, chip in your thoughts and maybe give me a nudge in how to promote my idea the best, if it is an idea worth promoting. The 1 million will be explained later. The villages should house around 100 paid workers (they are planned more spacious to accommodate their families as well). Most of them are meant to tend the agriculture side of the undertaking. If we estimate that the short-rotation coppice part of the project needs between 200.000 and 1.000.000 trees/km² and that an average person can plant 1.000 trees/day (thats lowballed see https://medium.com/cansbridge-fellowship/plant-trees-thats-all-you-did-c43c30b472c0) it is quiet possible to plant several km² a season with the roughly 100 workers in a village. Its hard to get more specific because of so many moving pieces like region, weather, soil condition etc. But 10 km² should be doable. When these are planted they need to be maintained and replanted partially after taking wood out for the pyrolysis. This is a complex slide. But (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13399-021-01284-5) is a good overview. Fig. 5 in 4.1 shows that there are pyrolysis technics to produce biochar containing a high carbon ratio. But I assume that this means that it retains possibly 50% or more of the carbon, the organic matter (wood) sucked out of the environment. Am I right? The same paper states under 4.1 that these biochar is possible stable for >1000 years. The rapid growth phase is ment to be around the first 5 years of tree growth where they put on a lot of biomass to establish themself against competition. I don't have a paper on this comparing different tree species does this one https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112720314869 support my point? We don't want to cut down all at once but every year a part of it. Is this good forestry practice in short-rotation coppicis? An easy method to create terra preta. Also the uppercase 1 refers to the 1 million villages. This number could be enough to suck out the yearly amount of CO² corresponding to the amount of manmade eCO². According to e.g. papers like these ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332151728_Total_Biomass_Carbon_Sequestration_Ability_Under_the_Changing_Climatic_Condition_by_Paulownia_tomentosa_Steud see Table 1) a tree can suck 4,5 kg of carbon out of the air a year. Planting 3.000 trees a hectare equals 13,5 t of carbon a hectare. 100 hectares make up a km² and 10 million of those equal 1,35e13 t of carbon a year. These would prevent 4,95e13 t of CO² a year of building up in the atmosphere. Man-made emissions were 3,7e13 t eCO² in 2024. This is a very ambitious time table as most eatable trees need more time to bear fruit. We would need to beige this gap by growing more bags tables and produce between the trees. But as they are on the smaller side the first years they should allow more light onto the ground. Here is everything counted not just the agroforest produce and the energy but also economic activity in off seasons and by family members not employed but houses on site. While pyrolysis needs initial heat for “ignition” there are ovens that are self-sustaining by burning pyrolysis gas emitted by the biomass itself. There is still excess heat left over after the pyrolysis. While I forgot to put down the company's name for the oven, it can be seen in action in this video, explanation starting at around 2:50 minutes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4pEQ2QOAfhk Around 2:50 From the two million € per village, one is intended for infrastructure, containing housing in containers, batteries, tools and most important the pyrolysis oven. This is at the moment much more costly than needed but I am positive to bring him down by building it on scale as we need a million of these. At the moment they are made one at a time on order. 500.000 € are meant to pay out income for 100 people over 2 years so about 200 € a month from the other 500.000 € I intend to buy food rations locally to fill up for things they can't harvest in the first two years, seedlings to grow the forest and other stuff. I know it is a pinch and it might be more expensive but I take this as a number to start working with. Please show major inconsistencies. Thank you for your time and please spread the idea if you like it. Feel free to adapt it. Daniel