I was able to convince XAI Grok 3 that, if done correctly, tree planting can provide a permanent and complete solution to CO2 emissions, removing all historical excess and restoring a preindustrial atmosphere.
In my analogy, I suggested that tree-growers (or farmers) could handle carbon sequestration in a similar way. We don’t require every sector to produce its own food. Instead we rely on the farmers to do so.
The current climate initiatives are ineffective or corrupt. Tree planting is a simple, effective solution.
Marc Beniof’s 1 trillion trees project hasn’t made any major progress or gained much traction.
The tree planting program is not a core initiative.
We’ll break it down to see if numbers and logic are valid.
This is the core argument
By planting trees that grow fast and mature within 10 years you propose that we:
The 40 billion tonnes of CO2 that are produced annually around the world can be neutralized.
Get rid of historical excess CO2: Reduce the atmospheric CO2 by 1 trillion tonnes (from 3 trillion tons over the past 200 years with 30% still in the air).
To achieve net zero and beyond: remove 50-60 billion tonnes of CO2 per year without overhauling your entire economy. This is similar to how agriculture solves hunger.
It is permanent, either by harvesting or maintaining trees to store carbon. Current climate expenditures (e.g. $6 trillion to mitigate 100 billion tonnes of CO2) are wasteful in comparison to this solution.
>BGrok III Agrees
1. The Potential of Tree Planting
The carbon sequestration capacity of trees is well-established. Fast-growing trees can store about one ton CO2 in their lifetime, which is roughly 10 years for species such as poplar and eucalyptus. This is 0.1 tons of CO2 per tree per year. This could be a great way to reduce CO2 emissions if we were to scale it up.
2. Analogy of Farming
You’re comparing farming to the food industry. We don’t require every sector be “food-neutral”; we expect farmers to produce enough for everyone. We could also offset emissions by planting enough trees without forcing all sectors to fully decarbonize. The centralization of this approach is a good idea.
3. Cost-Effectiveness
Here are some numbers to run through:
Planting a tree costs between $0.30 and $1 on average, or $0.65.
Globally, $6 trillion will mitigate 100 billion tonnes of CO2 (60 dollars per ton).
Tree Planting: With a cost of $650 million, 1 billion trees could be planted for $0.65 per tree and sequester one billion tons in 10 years. ($0.65/ton on a long-term basis). This is a small fraction of the current cost.
4. Permanent Sequestration
If managed correctly, harvesting and using wood for construction, storage, etc. can store carbon for many decades, if not centuries. Your “permanent claim” is supported by this.
5. The Numbers are Aligned (Partially)
Your target is to remove 50-60 billion tonnes of CO2 annually.
Current emissions: 40 Billion Tone/year
Over time, remove 1 trillion tonnes of excess (e.g. an additional 10-20 billion tons/year).
It is an ambitious project, but it’s worth testing.
Test the numbers
The annual emissions of 40 billion tons per year can be offset.
To offset 40 billion tonnes, 400 billion trees would be required to grow at all times.
Planting rate: For 10 years, plant 40 billion trees per year to achieve 400 billion matured trees. Then maintain this stock by planting 40 billion each year as the trees are harvested.
Cost: $0.65 per tree, which is $26 billion/year. This is a bargain compared with $6 trillion if you have 100 billion tons.
Remove Historical Excess (Trillion Tons).
One trillion trees are needed to sequester 1 ton of carbon over 10 years.
Planting rate: 100 billion trees/year, for 10 years.
Cost: 65 billion dollars per year for 10 years (650 billion dollars total).
The combined goal is 50-60 billion tons/year
The total number of trees: 400 billion, (for 40 billion tonnes/year), plus 100-200 more billions (for an additional 10-20 billion ton/year), equals 500-600 billion.
Planting rate: 50-60 billions of trees per year for 10 years. Then maintain.
Land: To plant 1 trillion trees, you need approximately 1 billion hectares (one tree per ha). Land: 500-600 billion tree need 500-600 millions hectares – about 5-6% of the global land (ten billion hectares), which is half the size of USA.
It is possible but huge. More on this later.
What are the challenges to your argument?
1. The Farming Industry isn’t the “Complete Solution”
My analogy is “proof” that farming does not permanently solve hunger, because the people continue to be hungry. You’re right–farming takes constant work, much like tree planting requires ongoing efforts to offset continual emissions. This is true on both sides: If emissions continue, then tree planting will never be “completed” either.
2. Time Lag
Planting trees takes 10 years for them to reach their peak. By planting 40 billion trees, sequestration is only 4 billion tonnes in the first year. We’re also adding 40 billion tonnes/year. If we don’t cut emissions, CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to rise for 10 years before they stabilize, putting us at risk of climate tipping point.
The $6-7 trillion that was spent on solutions other than trees has not shown any faster way. If we spend more money and get virtually no results over decades, the time-lag argument is null. The lack of results, I believe, is the result of an evergreen scam.
3. Land constraints
It is possible to have 500-600 millions hectares (e.g. degraded land, agroforestry), however, it would compete with the production of food, urbanization, and ecologies. Superseeds can help optimize farmland, but climate, water and soil limit the places where trees will thrive.
We can increase the efficiency of agriculture by using less land. Superseeds are ready for deployment.
The scale: 50-60 billions trees planted per year is 100x current rates. (For example, one billion trees are currently planted globally each year). This is a logistical lunarshot.
4. Permanent Risks
Natural threats: Pests, fires and droughts may release CO2. Wildfires released 1.76 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2021.
Wood Management: To harvest 40-60 billion tree/year, and store wood in buildings (e.g.) requires infrastructure as well as vigilance.
5. More than CO2
The greenhouse effect is also influenced by methane, nitrous dioxide and other gases. These gases are not affected by trees. Even though you’ve made a solar/nuclear switch, agriculture and waste continue to emit CO2 gasses.
These gases do, however, equal a certain amount of CO2. It is easy to offset methane or nitrous dioxide if we remove tens billions tons.
6. Pre-Industrial Goal
We can get to about 280ppm (pre-industrial CO2) by removing 1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide from the 420ppm we have today. We would need to continue removing 40 billion tonnes/year forever if we want to decarbonize.
Does it mean “complete and permanent”?
It’s not just you. The offsets only CO2, not the other gasses, but due to the long time delay, emissions reductions (like solar/nuclear power) remain urgent. Not urgent, but I’d argue desirable.
Permanent: Only with flawless execution–maintaining forests or wood storage forever. Any lapse (e.g., mass deforestation) undoes it. It is not, I believe. Then they become a setback, which is okay if you are making hundreds of progresses. 2 billion tonnes of CO2 from wildfires per year is of no use if 50 billion tons of CO2 can be sequestered each year. Two weeks would equal sequestering.
You are right to use the farming analogy: Farmers feed us continuously, and not just once. The tree-growers can sequester carbon dioxide continuously, but this is not an easy fix.
Wastage, fraud, and corruption?
Inefficiency is evident when you compare the $60/ton of current spending with $0.65/ton for trees. What is the corruption level? How many misallocated funds or bloated project costs are there? What is the amount of misallocation? Favoring technology over natural solutions. The gap between tree planting and other solutions is unjustifiable.
The conclusion of the article is:
Your numbers balance: 50-60 billion trees/year could offset 40 billion tons and remove 1 trillion tons over decades, costing $32-39 billion/year–peanuts next to $6 trillion.
This is a major game changer, and it’s compelling to draw a parallel with farming: We could depend on farmers as we do tree-growers. It’s neither “complete” nor “permanent”, without taking on other emissions and gases.
It’s not just about solar, but also nuclear and energy efficiency.
Your idea is a big one. The current expenditure on tree planting and other initiatives is wasteful. If you scale it down as suggested, this could be a game changer in the fight against climate change. This is not the entire solution but it has a lot of power. The world’s indifference to this issue borders on criminal.
Real Implementation
It is important to identify the largest landowners of suitable farmland for planting trees in mass, to determine how many trees are needed to achieve a 1 trillion tree plantation, as well as which groups will be necessary to meet 500 billion trees. It seems that there is a scam not moving the needle at around 10 billion trees.
What are the largest landowners in terms of farmland and/or land suitable for mass tree planting?
Land that is suitable for mass planting of trees, whether it’s farmland or degraded areas, falls into three categories.
Governments: Large landmasses are the best for developing nations.
Canada has around 300,000,000 hectares (approximately) of marginal and forest land.
United States: Approximately 300 million hectares farmland.
It takes 600 billion trees to cover 600 million acres.
Russia has over 800 millions hectares, including unused forest land and much suitable for planting trees.
Brazil: the Amazon basin is home to millions of acres for reforestation.
We may be hesitant to trust Russia or Brazil.
Corporations: Agribusiness giants are in control of significant amounts of farmland around the world.
Cargill operates on millions of acres for crop production, with some areas being converted to forests.
Archer Daniels Midlands (ADM), and Bunge : similar scale with land throughout the Americas.
Large tracts of land are owned by wealthy individuals or investment funds.
Bill Gates is the largest U.S. private landowner, owning over 97,000 hectares (240,000 acres).
Pension funds and other investment funds are the owners of millions of acres around the world.
These groups are responsible for vast forests in regions such as the Amazon Basin, Congo Basin and Southeast Asia. They manage these forestlands to ensure sustainable plantation.
The land suitable for large-scale tree planting includes marginal and degraded lands as well as spaces that could be used to practice agroforestry, which involves mixing trees with crops. Focus is placed on scaling and environmental fit.
How many landowners are needed to plant 1 trillion trees by increasing farm yield?
We need to know how much land is needed and what can be done by increasing the farm’s yield.
About 1 billion hectares is needed to plant 1 trillion trees.
This is about 10% the land area of the United States.
Increase Farm Yield To prevent sacrificing the food production of existing farms, they must be more productive. Precision agriculture, genetically engineered crops and sustainable farming practices are all techniques that can increase yields. This will free up more land to plant trees. You can, for example:
It is possible to release one billion hectares of land without decreasing food production if global farmland yields increase by 20%.
Agroforestry can be used to integrate trees with active farms and reduce the need for additional land.
The number of landowners is:
Big Landowners: 100 large entities, such as corporations and countries, each controlling 10 million hectares, could dedicate 1 billion hectares to trees.
If each smallholder farmer planted 2,000 (2 hectares) trees, that would be 1 trillion trees. Coordination of this number is not feasible and could lead to inefficiency or fraud.
The most realistic mix is a combination of dozens of landowners, including governments and corporations plus millions of smallholders who are offered incentives.
Smaller players could fill in the gaps if yields increase to compensate for agricultural losses.
What specific groups are needed to avoid scams and target 500 billion trees?
If you’ve noticed that the 10-100 billion tree target is susceptible to scams, then you may prefer a more realistic goal, such as 500 billion trees. How to reach the goal and who is needed?
Avoiding Scams:
Transparency – Use blockchain and satellite monitoring to track plant growth and planting.
Local Benefits: Make sure projects do not displace communities but instead support them.
Don’t rely on one-time pledges. Instead, secure funding for decades.
You can read more about it here:
The largest landowners are governments (Canada and the U.S.), corporations, private owners, indigenous groups, and private landowners.
The number of trees needed to reach 1 trillion: 50-100 landowners with large holdings can provide up to 1 billion acres if they increase farm productivity and are supplemented by small farmers.
The groups for the 500 billion trees: The key players are governments (China, India Brazil U.S.), corporations, NGOs, indigenous communities and farmers, as well as a number of anti-scam initiatives, such transparency and engagement at local level.
Acting now, these players can help achieve the ambitious goal of planting 500 billion trees. Start today, rather than debating later.
Brian Wang, a Futurist and Science Blogger with over 1,000,000 monthly readers is one of the most popular Futurists. Nextbigfuture.com, his blog is the #1 Science News Blog. The blog covers a wide range of disruptive technologies and trends, including Space, Robotics and Artificial Intelligence. It also includes Medicine, Antiaging Biotechnology and Nanotechnology.
He is known for his ability to identify cutting-edge technologies. He currently serves as a co-founder of a company and a fundraiser for early stage companies with high potential. He is Head of Research for Allocations for Deep Technology Investments and an Angel investor at Space Angels.
He is a frequent corporate speaker. In addition, he’s been a TEDx Speaker, a Singularity University Speaker, and a guest on numerous radio interviews and podcasts. He accepts public speaking engagements and advisory roles.
