Drowning trees in the Arctic Ocean could reduce carbon emissions. But is it worth it?

Trees are known for their ability to store carbon dioxide. They use the gas to fuel their growth, which is why young, fast-growing trees absorb more carbon than mature trees.

But this storage solution is not forever. When trees decompose or burn in wildfires, they release that carbon back into the atmosphere.

A group of scientists from the UK, Switzerland and the Czech RepublicThe idea was to sink mature trees from the vast boreal forest into the deep Arctic Ocean to lock away their carbon for centuries to come.

In a study published in the online peer-reviewed journal NPJ Climate Action, Scientists used computer modeling to explore the effects of removing specific stands of old, fire-prone trees in Canada, Alaska and Russia, flowing them into six Arctic rivers, including the Yukon and Mackenzie, and dumping them into the Arctic Ocean.

Also, new, faster-growing trees will be planted in their place to accelerate the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere.

Last year, the same scientist 8,000 year old trees discoveredStill intact in low-oxygen alpine lakes. So the hypothesis is that the cold, low-oxygen water in the Arctic will also serve to slow down decay and keep that carbon in cold storage for thousands of years.

The study found that if done annually in tThree areas covering 10,000 square kilometers each, which is only one percent of Boreal forests can remove up to one gigaton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.

Although this idea works as a thought experiment, one gigaton is a drop in the bucket compared to total world carbon emissions.NS, which the International Energy Agency calls 37.8 gigatons in 2024 aloneUp from previous years.

disdaine potential benefitsIn the case of carbon storage, such a massive project also needs to consider the amount of energy required to complete it and the associated carbon emissions.

Large machinery is required to go into the forests, cut trees and transport them to rivers. Then, the huge logs must either be loaded onto barges or floated downstream without clogging. Once they reach the deep waters of the Arctic Ocean, some way must sink them to the bottom and keep them there.

As we’ve learned over many centuries of boat building, wood floats really well. Researchers say it takes about a year for driftwood to sink naturally, but it can take longer if trapped in sea ice.

Once thousands of logs are permanently submerged, there are also unknown effects on organisms living on the ocean floor.

The forest also has a price. As ecologist Suzanne Simard explains in her book, Finding the Mother TreeA mature tree supports many other forms of life, from mosses, lichens, insects and birds, to the network of fungi clinging to its extensive roots. Removing trees is a major disruption to forests, which thrive on diversity.

Ultimately, the traditional lifestyle of the indigenous population living in these forests is affected.

This is another extreme example of a big geoengineering idea designed to reduce rising carbon emissions.

concepts like Spraying of sulfur particles in the upper atmosphere To reduce solar radiation, water spray on polar ice To thicken it and prevent damage during summer, and build a giant canopy In space to cool Everyone on earth will have to make a lot of efforts Long period of time.

And each comes with unknown consequences for tampering with the atmosphere, oceans, and other natural systems.

All of these ideas are last resort efforts being considered if we don’t address the source of the problem, which is burning fossil fuels.

It’s like he was on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg and the captain says, “Don’t worry, we’ll pump the water out and keep the ship afloat.”

The Titanic was equipped with pumps, but unfortunately water was coming into the ship faster than the pumps could keep up, and we all know the result.

Our global carbon emissions are flowing into the atmosphere faster than we can remove them.

The ultimate solution is to deal with the primary source, which is burning fossil fuels. And the good news is that the technology to produce energy without emissions already exists.

We know how to capture the sun’s energy, the wind, the Earth’s heat, and the tides. Nuclear energy is making a comebackand waste free nuclear fusion is on the horizon. solar energy is now cheaper than coal.

These clean technologies are growing, but not fast enough. is resistant to change, and has a strong eTry to maintain business as usual because a lot of money and jobs are tied to those old technologies.

We can do much more than just drain water from a sinking ship. We can close the hole and keep swimming.