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

There’s a lot to unpack.

5 hours ago, worldwoodproject said:

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

The densest forests have less than 75k trees per square km

https://worldpopulationreview.com/metrics/how-many-trees-are-in-the-world

“Countries with the densest tree cover in trees per square kilometer:

• Finland (72,644)

• Slovenia (71,131)

• Sweden (69,161)

• Taiwan (62,975)

• Brunei (62,333)…”

5 hours ago, worldwoodproject said:

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.

How come you haven't weighed the benfits against the disbenefits ?

Was this page generated by AI or is it your own work ?

7 hours ago, worldwoodproject said:

We would need to beige this gap by growing more bags tables and produce between the trees

Domo arigato...

38 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Domo arigato...

Quite. "Bags tables" reminds me of "Ass ruin torino fee, strangle ache, etc." (I expect you know that one. It starts: "Morny, ruin sorbees".)

Hadn't heard that particular one, but heard ones like that. That's room 23, scrambled egg? I think I only got that because we had a Filipino woman as neighbor for couple years and her accent was like that.

Anyway (mod approaches, slapping baton against his palm) I think it's questionable how pyrolysis ovens (self-cleaning ovens) would be an answer to carbon reduction. And the other concept, "grow lots of trees to fix carbon," doesn't seem like breaking news.

46 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Hadn't heard that particular one, but heard ones like that. That's room 23, scrambled egg? I think I only got that because we had a Filipino woman as neighbor for couple years and her accent was like that.

Anyway (mod approaches, slapping baton against his palm) I think it's questionable how pyrolysis ovens (self-cleaning ovens) would be an answer to carbon reduction. And the other concept, "grow lots of trees to fix carbon," doesn't seem like breaking news.

Room 1303 I thought but otherwise yes, that exchange has been standard on the Far East business traveller circuit for several decades. Back to the subject, I'm not sure where all these people are who would be willing to take part on a huge programme like this, even f it the science stacks up, which I am far from convinced about.

Edited August 27Aug 27 by exchemist

21 hours ago, swansont said:

..The densest forests have less than 75k trees per square km

..

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.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by worldwoodproject

21 hours ago, studiot said:

How come you haven't weighed the benfits against the disbenefits ?

Was this page generated by AI or is it your own work ?

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.

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

Domo arigato...

Mea culpa. .. to bridge the gap, we need to grow vegetables..

11 minutes ago, worldwoodproject said:

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.

Thank you for replying.

I agree that tree planting can significantly affect climate.

The Great Green Wall project is showing tangible benefits in subsaharan Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(Africa)#:~:text=The%20Great%20Green%20Wall%20or%20Great%20Green,from%20Djibouti%20City%2C%20Djibouti%20to%20Dakar%2C%20Senegal.

This is without the need for energy intensive cooking of wood.

On that energy this same region of course is ideal for using solar power as a source.

Where would you plant your trees ?

..This is without the need for energy intensive cooking of wood..

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.

.. And the other concept, "grow lots of trees to fix carbon," doesn't seem like breaking news..

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.

..Where would you plant your trees ?..

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.

@worldwoodproject For climate and emissions purposes there look like 3 ways involved - permanently increasing global average biomass by re-vegetation of areas with little vegetation, by using pyrolysis/gasification products as sustainable bio-fuels (trees drawing down CO2 and releasing CO2 by the burning the gases produced and what is used by the pyrolyzer) to be drawn back from the atmosphere again, over and over in a sustainable way and third, by adding chars/charcoal left after gasification to soils.

Increasing global vegetation to achieve a permanent increase in global biomass helps, but it tops out and stops being a carbon sink over time ie cannot continue to draw down CO2 indefinitely; there will be finite land area suitable, they will be susceptible to weather and climate and fire, and susceptible to changes to land use and carbon 'sequestration' policies. It makes no income in and of itself - rather, it requires external funding. It seems likely to have high labour and equipment requirements. Who pays for it and what the pay and conditions for those employed will be is going to matter; poor people deserve better than to be exploited as cheap labour.

The chars can be added to soils but that too is likely to get diminishing returns and have high production and distribution costs. And perpetually taking from some areas and spreading the chars in others seems likely to have longer term consequences to vegetation health.

My own view is that at best such 'emissions reductions' apply to land use sector practices and do not in any way 'offset' fossil fuel emissions. When a new, higher global biomass balance is achieved it stops doing even that much - and getting there looks more like a sustained recovery of biomass lost to land clearing and forest harvesting than reducing the climate problem. Without the cessation of fossil fuel burning any 'reductions' in CO2 are going to be overwhelmed; no matter that there appear to be potential for large stocks of locked up Carbon, ongoing flows have to stop.

Forest biomass as sustainable biofuel, using pyrolysis/gasification probably does have some uses, but I suspect more as forest fire risk management, gasifying dry dead vegetation as an alternative to burning it in place. And as a local energy source for other forest-farming activities. Not as a principle source of energy for communities.

And I think it won't compete as an energy source with much easier, cheaper energy like solar PV - that once in place require low levels of ongoing maintenance; gasifiers have to be fed and maintained on an ongoing basis.

Edited August 31Aug 31 by Ken Fabian

8 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

For climate and emissions purposes there look like 3 ways involved - permanently increasing global average biomass by re-vegetation of areas with little vegetation, by using pyrolysis/gasification products as sustainable bio-fuels (trees drawing down CO2 and releasing CO2 by the burning the gases produced and what is used by the pyrolyzer) to be drawn back from the atmosphere again, over and over in a sustainable way and third, by adding chars/charcoal left after gasification to soils.

etc

Agreed +1

Increasing global vegetation to achieve a permanent increase in global biomass helps, but it tops out and stops being a carbon sink over time ie cannot continue to draw down CO2 indefinitely; there will be finite land area suitable, they will be susceptible to weather and climate and fire, and susceptible to changes to land use and carbon 'sequestration' policies. It makes no income in and of itself - rather, it requires external funding. It seems likely to have high labour and equipment requirements. Who pays for it and what the pay and conditions for those employed will be is going to matter; poor people deserve better than to be exploited as cheap labour.

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.  

The chars can be added to soils but that too is likely to get diminishing returns and have high production and distribution costs. And perpetually taking from some areas and spreading the chars in others seems likely to have longer term consequences to vegetation health.

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.

My own view is that at best such 'emissions reductions' apply to land use sector practices and do not in any way 'offset' fossil fuel emissions. When a new, higher global biomass balance is achieved it stops doing even that much - and getting there looks more like a sustained recovery of biomass lost to land clearing and forest harvesting than reducing the climate problem.

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?

Without the cessation of fossil fuel burning any 'reductions' in CO2 are going to be overwhelmed; no matter that there appear to be potential for large stocks of locked up Carbon, ongoing flows have to stop.

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.

Forest biomass as sustainable biofuel, using pyrolysis/gasification probably does have some uses, but I suspect more as forest fire risk management, gasifying dry dead vegetation as an alternative to burning it in place. And as a local energy source for other forest-farming activities.

Totally agree it being effective for this scenario.

Not as a principle source of energy for communities

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.

And I think it won't compete as an energy source with much easier, cheaper energy like solar PV - that once in place require low levels of ongoing maintenance; gasifiers have to be fed and maintained on an ongoing basis.

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.

I think re-vegetation has many benefits including contributing in some ways to climate solutions, but I am not convinced your maximum growth mono-culture with coppicing and pyrolysis for making chars or poles model is viable at large scales. Which isn't the same as opposing doing so - best wishes to those who try - but I don't see how it can be economically viable or necessarily the best use of resources - land, human and economic. I think it will fail for poor economics.

It isn't forest restoration - which might plant as many as 100 seedlings with the intention of achieving one long lived forest giant a century later. Mostly restoration excludes harvesting. I think funding restoration via taxes is more popular (but probably still not popular enough) than funding forest farming, that can be expected to be financially self supporting.

The biomass recovery aspect happens quite well without human intervention; simply taking away the grazing livestock will result in re-vegetation - if not growing from surviving seeds in soils (where de-vegetation is relatively recent) then by wind and animals bringing them. Cost-wise I suspect that will add global biomass the cheapest and easiest, but won't be restoration and still needs to limit harvesting to maximise biomass retention. Your way seems very labor and equipment intensive.

Cool burning of forest understory can add char to soils. with much less labor and equipment.

If not using the gas output of pyrolysis for energy it becomes polluting, as 'smoke' or becomes waste heat and CO2 by flaring - which, yes, gets 'recycled' by subsequent plant growth.

If used for energy it seems to require a lot of dedicated made-for-purpose equipment; I know people who've tried to build such systems - eg converted ICE generators running off gasifiers - but none have worked well or stood the test of time. At larger scale, one local example exists, primarily for making bio-char as a soil additive and does tap 'emissions reduction' funding but not sure it is cost effective without that or is suitable for massively scaling up.

As someone with solar panels on roof with home batteries and have found it easy, versatile, reliable and convenient it is hard to see gasifiers as a better alternative.

Carbon Offsetting and CCS funded by levies on fossil fuels depend on extracting and burning fossil fuels for ongoing funding. which isn't a climate solution. Or it must be taxpayer funded. Both ways are fiercely resisted.

I don't think it is a waste of time but I don't see doing it your way is going to scale up and become widespread.

Edited September 3Sep 3 by Ken Fabian

On 9/2/2025 at 8:12 AM, worldwoodproject said:

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.

I understand all this, and there may even be a part in the overall scheme of things to come for this but I don't see the manufacture of what amounts to artificial coal as being a big player.

Firstly there are better alternatives than forestry for fixing carbon.

We recently had a thread noting that sea grass is up to 30 times more effective than the amazonian forests.

Recently there has been much interest in spagnum moss as it is apparantly something like five times as effective for boggy areas, where forest will not grow.

Talking about areas where forests will not grow,

Why do you think vast areas of the Andes and Rockies and Himalaya etc poke out above the forest ?

How much forest can you groe in the tundra or on Shetland, where there are no trees because the prevailing winds are too strong for them ?

What about the Sahara, gobi, atacama, Kalahari, Australia etc ?

So where exactly would you grow these trees ? Spruce will not grow in the Amazon and tropical mahogany will not grow in Alaska.

The sea grass and moss have another advantage.

They are immediate. You do not have to wait 50 to 100 years for carbon sequestration payback.

Talking of immediate, the main thing we could all do is change our ways to create less waste. To make things last, not have extravagant ways.

I think re-vegetation has many benefits including contributing in some ways to climate solutions, but I am not convinced your maximum growth mono-culture with coppicing and pyrolysis for making chars or poles model is viable at large scales. Which isn't the same as opposing doing so - best wishes to those who try - but I don't see how it can be economically viable or necessarily the best use of resources - land, human and economic. I think it will fail for poor economics.

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.

The biomass recovery aspect happens quite well without human intervention; simply taking away the grazing livestock will result in re-vegetation - if not growing from surviving seeds in soils (where de-vegetation is relatively recent) then by wind and animals bringing them. Cost-wise I suspect that will add global biomass the cheapest and easiest, but won't be restoration and still needs to limit harvesting to maximise biomass retention. Your way seems very labor and equipment intensive.

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.

Cool burning of forest understory can add char to soils. with much less labor and equipment.

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.

If not using the gas output of pyrolysis for energy it becomes polluting, as 'smoke' or becomes waste heat and CO2 by flaring - which, yes, gets 'recycled' by subsequent plant growth.

If used for energy it seems to require a lot of dedicated made-for-purpose equipment; I know people who've tried to build such systems - eg converted ICE generators running off gasifiers - but none have worked well or stood the test of time. At larger scale, one local example exists, primarily for making bio-char as a soil additive and does tap 'emissions reduction' funding but not sure it is cost effective without that or is suitable for massively scaling up.

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?

As someone with solar panels on roof with home batteries and have found it easy, versatile, reliable and convenient it is hard to see gasifiers as a better alternative.

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 .

Carbon Offsetting and CCS funded by levies on fossil fuels depend on extracting and burning fossil fuels for ongoing funding. which isn't a climate solution. Or it must be taxpayer funded. Both ways are fiercely resisted.

I don't think it is a waste of time but I don't see doing it your way is going to scale up and become widespread.

Firstly there are better alternatives than forestry for fixing carbon.

We recently had a thread noting that sea grass is up to 30 times more effective than the amazonian forests.

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.

Recently there has been much interest in spagnum moss as it is apparantly something like five times as effective for boggy areas, where forest will not grow.

As effective as what? Plus yes, bogs are great. Don't want to disturb them.

Talking about areas where forests will not grow,

Why do you think vast areas of the Andes and Rockies and Himalaya etc poke out above the forest ?

How much forest can you groe in the tundra or on Shetland, where there are no trees because the prevailing winds are too strong for them ?

What about the Sahara, gobi, atacama, Kalahari, Australia etc ?

So where exactly would you grow these trees ? Spruce will not grow in the Amazon and tropical mahogany will not grow in Alaska.

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.

The sea grass and moss have another advantage.

They are immediate. You do not have to wait 50 to 100 years for carbon sequestration payback.

As I envision 9/10 km² being short rotation coppicis as agroforestrys the paybac would start at year 5 after planting.

Talking of immediate, the main thing we could all do is change our ways to create less waste. To make things last, not have extravagant ways.

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