From Peter Saul
The article “Carbon Lockdown” (3 May, p 32) refers to trees being buried, with all the uncertainties of eventual carbon release. Why not just bury paper? It will stand up to long-term storage in adverse conditions without toxic by-products. It is unlikely to give off gasses, or to decay into carbon dioxide in the near future.
In the UK, local councils mostly collect paper for recycling anyway, but the process involves toxic chemicals, is expensive and leads to a relatively inferior product. It is acceptable for newsprint, with some new material, but not good enough for magazines.
In 2005 world newsprint production was over 40 million tonnes. Assuming that magazines are similar, and that 3 tonnes of carbon produces 12 tonnes of CO2, then the total available for sequestration is 320 million tonnes: probably more than 1 per cent of all CO2 emissions.
It’s a low-cost, environmentally friendly solution with no obvious drawback.
Advertisement
From Chris Collins
Burying wood underground seems a pretty expensive way to sequester carbon. Perhaps there is a case for some urgent research to find a means of turning it into a stable substance which could not only lock in carbon in all sorts of environments but which could be put to practical use, such as thermal insulation for eco-homes, cheap crockery for picnic use, bits and bobs for car interiors, and so on. Any means of reducing the carbon load is only likely to find favour in the real world if someone can expect to make money out of it.
Llandrindod Wells, Powys, UK
Towcester, Northamptonshire, UK
