Hacker News Reader

A redwood tree can live for more than 2000 years. That seems plenty long for carbon sequestration.

We should pay the logging companies to save a certain number of trees instead of cutting them every 30 or so years.

When the trees are logged for use as lumber, the carbon is sequestered into structures and new trees are typically planted (or allowed to grow) for future logging, capturing carbon in the meantime.

Good point!

I wonder if a 1000 year old tree would gather more or less carbon over it's lifetime than 20 separate 50 year old trees?

I recall reading somewhere that trees follow a sigmoid growth pattern, reaching a maturity where they no longer create a whole lot more biomass. I think the 20 separate trees would do better.

Depends on the trees but if we are talking about redwoods its certainly more for the 1000 year old tree.

Giant Sequoias need forrest fires to reproduce. Their pine cones won't open without sufficient heat. This makes sense, if you consider the dense forests these trees create.

Older / larger redwoods can survive intense fires. Their bark is fire resistant.

That is less and less true. The intensity of the fires has changed due to the recent history of excessive fire suppression and the resulting fuel accumulation.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/wildfires-kill-unprecedente...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com