Business Chop Down Forests To Save The Planet? Maybe Not As Crazy As It Sounds - Bill Gates and other investors are betting Kodama Systems can reduce carbon dioxide in the air by chopping down and burying trees. Now if only Uncle Sam would get on board with tax credits, too.

A year ago, Merritt Jenkins moved from Boston to Twain Harte, California, a speck of 2,500 souls in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas. On his morning commute, he stops at Alicia’s Sugar Shack for a breakfast sandwich (scrambled eggs on rye with avocado), then heads to a 10-acre patch of woods in the Stanislaus National Forest. There, his startup, Kodama Systems, is testing and perfecting its 25-foot-long, 17-ton semiautonomous timber harvesting machine.

Loggers use such machines, known as skidders, to grab tons of cut trees and debris and drag them out of the woods. Kodama’s version is designed to do the job even at night, with fewer workers, using satellite connectivity and advanced lidar (light detection and ranging) cameras, the same type that are used on self-driving cars, to monitor the work remotely. It isn’t easy. “There’s a lot of texture to the trees. Every 10 feet of skid trail is slightly different,” says Jenkins, 35.

But logging in the dark isn’t the most intriguing part of the plans at Kodama, which has raised $6.6 million in seed funding from Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy and others. After cutting down the trees, Jenkins plans to bury them—to help slow climate change and to reap salable carbon offsets (and maybe, someday, tax credits too).

Yes, the conventional idea is to plant trees to soak up carbon dioxide from the air and to then sell credits to corporations, private jet owners and others who need or want to offset their emissions. But scientists say burying trees can reduce global warming as well—particularly if those trees would otherwise end up burning or decaying, spewing their stored carbon into the air.

California’s enormous 2020 wildfires drove home the risks to air, property and life posed by overgrown forests. “The orange skies in San Francisco were an inflection point. Now the story resonates,” says Jimmy Voorhis, head of biomass utilization and policy at Kodama. The alarm bells are sounding even louder this year as Canadian wildfires have spread dangerous air conditions to New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago.

To help address the problem, the U.S. Forest Service aims to thin out 70 million acres of western forests, mostly in California, over the next decade, extracting more than 1 billion tons of bone-dry biomass. It is customary, after such forest thinning, for logs of marketable size to go to sawmills, with most of the rest piled up and later burned under controlled conditions. Kodama wants to bury the leftovers instead—in earthen vaults designed to maintain dry and anoxic (oxygen-free) conditions and protect the wood from rotting or burning.

Along with the VC seed money, Kodama has already received $1.1 million in grants from California’s forest fire agency and others, as well as purchase commitments for the carbon credits tied to the first 400 tons of trees it buries. On the open market, those credits should fetch $200 a ton. Eventually Kodama wants to cut down and bury more than 5,000 tons of trees a year.

A Dartmouth grad with degrees in both engineering and environmental studies, Jenkins started selling used robotic equipment while earning a master’s in robotics at Carnegie Mellon. Then he cofounded a company that uses machine learning to help farmers analyze soil. But in 2019, while earning an MBA at MIT, he concluded there was more opportunity in forestry than in the crowded ag-tech field. He backed away from the AI company and spent months with loggers to understand how they use equipment, and by 2021 had settled on forestry robotics, convinced that labor shortages would drive demand. “There’s not enough workforce,” he says. “We’ll need new training and new technologies” to meet the Forest Service’s clearing goals.

He also saw another “big gap” in the industry: what to do with all that biomass. He had heard about biomass vaults from Yale’s Carbon Containment Lab. Then mutual friends introduced him to Voorhis, a 33-year-old mountaineer, geologist and earth sciences engineer (with an M.S. from Dartmouth), who had become obsessed with the idea of reclaiming old mines as biomass burial sites. They joined forces.

The notion of burying trees sounds simple and low-tech, particularly when compared with the convoluted “carbon capture” technology now being developed to pull CO2 from the air. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act Democrats passed in 2022, companies like Occidental Petroleum and ExxonMobil could qualify for tax credits of $85 per ton of CO2 sequestered if they can perfect systems to suck the gas directly from the air and transport it by pipeline before injecting it permanently underground. The IRA further incentivizes some of these projects with tax credits equal to 30% or more of upfront capital invested.

If you want to cut down trees and pelletize them to burn in place of coal, there are tax credits for that too. But not, as of now, for burying them.

“If you need to remove carbon at scale, it’s crazy not to learn from nature or harness nature,” says Lucas Joppa, a former chief environmental officer at Microsoft who is now at Haveli Investments. “We’ve never come remotely close to being as efficient at removing carbon from the atmosphere as evolution has.”

How efficient? University of Maryland atmospheric science professor Ning Zeng, considered the godfather of biomass burial, explains that the average ton of freshly harvested forest is about 50% carbon by weight, and if left to rot or burn it would put the equivalent of one ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A good rule of thumb, he says: “A ton of biomass in the Earth is a ton of CO2 not in the sky.”

Zeng has his own startup, Carbon Lockdown, which has a contract with the city of Baltimore to pick up 5,000 tons of biomass and bury it near wealthy, leafy Potomac, Maryland. He’s selling the carbon credits generated by that burial at $181 per sequestered ton on Puro.earth (a platform that was built with backing from the Finnish government and became majority-owned by Nasdaq in 2021). Swedish investment company Kinnevik recently bought 1,000 tons. “Nature-based technologies are here and scalable,” says Mikaela Kramer, who oversees carbon credit purchases for Kinnevik. “It doesn’t have to wait another 10 years.”

Still, it’s tough to get large-scale private or government investment in biomass burial because it’s neither replacing a climate-destroying industrial activity nor creating a product that’s of use to people—other than the credits themselves. It also can mean disturbing land.

In Texas, attorney Chris Knop, 43, has already interred more than 4,000 tons of biomass on 45 acres of land his company, Carbon Sequestration, owns near the Louisiana border. The land there is ideal for the anoxic burial required to prevent biomass from decomposing, he says, because of its thick layer of clay. He recently acquired 15,000 tons of debris from landowners north of Beaumont, who are clearing pine forest for real estate development and would otherwise have burned it, enabling him to sell carbon credits for $145 a ton on Puro.

Knop thinks he can break even and was counting on federal tax credits to make the venture profitable. But Congress didn’t explicitly include biomass burial in its tax-credit bonanza. Now Knop and biomass lobbyists are hoping that when the Treasury writes final rules for carbon sequestration credits, biomass will qualify. “I’m just looking for some type of affirmation,” he says.

Knop also has an out-there vision for turning America’s forestlands into carbon sponges by chopping down pine trees, burying them and then replanting with more carbon-thirsty species like bamboo, kenaf or poplar. In the U.S., hundreds of millions of acres are dedicated to cattle grazing or timber production, he says. “Why not switch to carbon farming?”

Back at Kodama, Jenkins is focused on burying wood that needs to be culled anyway for forest health, while Voorhis is aiming to adapt defunct mines and quarries—rather than dig new land—for biomass storage. “We will measure the gas and leachate and completely box off the carbon flows,” Voorhis promises. “If you meet anyone with an old inert rock quarry, let me know.”

 
If you told me 10 years ago I would be on the side of the "save the trees" people I wouldn't believe you.

Now I want to be at the forefront of it.
There is some sense about having at least part of the trees available. They are, after all, the Earth's lungs. Controlled harvesting should be a thing. Harvest some for wood burning, leave the rest to regrow.
 
That's what they're doing with the whales as wind turbines are being built offshore.
Migratory birds can apparently get fucked too. These windmills are such useless, destructive eyesores and they produce tons of trash that can't be recycled or reused. Total waste.
Whole idea sounds retarded and I’m not sure why journos are so celeb obsessed that they think Gates being attached somehow makes this a worthwhile idea. Though in reality the group wanting to do this probably put together press kits journos could reword a little so they could produce yet another absurdly lazy article.
The idea itself isn't necessarily bad if you are just burying dead/dying trees as part of managing the forest. However I really don't know how a tax credit won't incentivize cutting down and burying perfectly healthy trees and clearcutting forest areas.

Why doesn't anyone talk about restoring natural grasslands in the Great Plains? There's a lot of former pasture land and unused farmland that could be restored and establishing those native grasses and reviving a full prairie ecosystem would be a huge natural carbon sink. It would also revitalize the soil for future use as farm or ranching land if we did need it in the future.

You wouldn't even need to take any land from the owners, most likely they're already receiving payment to keep it fallow so there's no downside to doing restoration on it. If need be they can pay an added supplemental payment to cover the cost of using the land to grow crops if prices made it worthwhile to do so.
 
So what's the plan for all the species impacted by clearcutting forests and burying them in the ground?

"We have to destroy the ecosystem in order to save it"?

And then hold up the effects later as "proof" of a problem needing even more extreme "fixes".. as well as more sacrifices and totalitarian control.
 
take bikini bottom and put it somewhere else.
literally how dumb can you fucking be.

bury the trees, hmm okay well there isn't even enough DNR/NRA/NDA/DNPPPPPP whatever you have in your area to CHECK on the woods or animals or help people let alone bury all the fallen twigs and logs on a stupid whim.

home owner can cut down all of their trees even if their state told them not to, the fines you'll face for cutting trees in your own yard would be livable.
they do it anyway and face fines, but the trees are gone for 50++++ years and this routine isn't saving them. they use money from the cut trees to pay fines.

business and money will wipe out nature, money cannot be used to fix nature because bigger money always cuts it down for profit.

there is no actual protection for forests, there is not enough officers just in the woods waiting to pop out at people and most woodland areas have no internet to even be able to resource motion detection cameras unless by tape that will have to be manually retrieved without the internet.
people don't even know what they're looking at when they see a tree farm having no idea that land is not a forest and was mowed flat for development. how pines may not even come from their area but tree farms are full of them.

human seeing responsibility says "OH WELL."

i can't tell you how many people get off the side of the road to walk up to the fences with cows or sheep and accept trespassing to get bit by a fucking farm animal.

however if your farm animal bites them even though they trespassed, you might have to kill your perfectly fine sheep because of what some rogue retard thought was okay and this country's bullshit human rights but no environmental rights or animal rights.

not only that, walking up to a farm animal could be to poison or assault it, and with no cameras in the country you wouldn't know what happened.
horses have been fed treats by people in their cars and have died eating food portions that people don't understand they can't handle like large carrot chunks, only to have the person come back and leave carrots for the other horses to die on, even after the area issued an awareness about feeding farm animals.

you guys have no idea how much you stress out where your food comes from. you stress out the people working hard to provide food for your stupid asses because you want a picture with a cow or near some corn for twitter.
you fuck around on our property line if not completely walk into our yards and think it's the fucking woods without realizing you're putting yourself in a position to get shot, no one will know where the bullet came from just like no one knew you even came out here and your car is way down by the side of the road.
 
Última edición:
Using wood would be just as good as burying it in terms of carbon capture, if it's sealed properly and not rotting.

Just build more. Use wood for stuff. It's not rocket science.
 
If you told me 10 years ago I would be on the side of the "save the trees" people I wouldn't believe you.

Now I want to be at the forefront of it.
It's natural and right to want to prevent Total Tree Death. The thing is, tree huggers are retards and went after the wrong people. They think that deforestation is mostly in America and is caused by white men. Sound familiar?

In reality, trees are being planted faster than they can be cut down because we realized, long ago, that infinite regeneration is a good thing. The only deforestation is happening in third world countries, but you never hear about that for the same reason you never hear about how 90% of the garbage in the ocean comes from India and a handful of African nations. All leftist NPC beliefs ultimately lead to the same place: whitey bad.
 
Plant trees

Cut down trees

Preserve ecosystems

Trash ecosystems by installing solar panels and wind turbines to the horizon

"Renewable energy"

No not like that not the only one that actually works everywhere, nuclear (hydro works if you have a huge river, not everywhere has a huge river you may have noticed)

These people are fucking schizoids
 
If you told me 10 years ago I would be on the side of the "save the trees" people I wouldn't believe you.

Now I want to be at the forefront of it.
Growing up it was all about replanting trees and saving the rainforest to protect the environment. Now we are talking about clear-cutting forests, wiping out species and letting God sort them out to protect the planet.
 
Wait, so no to nuclear power but yes to massive deforestation?

And I'm supposed to believe that these ghouls give the slightest fuck about the environment?
 
This is a kodama. They are very creepy cute.
1693336794966.jpg
In Japanese folklore, they are spirits that live in trees. Generally harmless or even helpful. Anyone who harms their home gets cursed.
 
Am I wrong in thinking that forests are actually largely carbon net-neutral? Yes, they photosynthesize during the day and spit out oxygen, but at night they do respiration and use up oxygen. The idea of the forest as some kind of oxygen manufacturing plant is green propaganda, no?
You are retarded.
I'll take your word for it, but that doesn't make forests oxygen-positive. They provide homes for all kinds of species that do not photosynthesize and instead just use up oxygen and spit out carbon.
Something like one tree produces more oxygen than probably all the animals in the forest consume.
 
Bill Gates is becoming more like a Captain Planet villain every time I read about his latest schemes.
 
This is just a guise . Carbon credits were already a scam to do nothing about climate change because it's inevitable no matter what we do at this point. This is feel good fodder for idiotic people to think they are doing something. Logging trees in Cali and sticking them down old mine shafts I can see being beneficial as long as they strictly cut down the living bomb eucalyptus ones and get rid of other wildfire hazards made by hubris, but I'm not holding my breath there. But it still will not help get carbon out of the air, to say nothing of other greenhouse gasses. And beyond that, there is relatively little study on how the sun and what it does, space "weather" affects what goes on in our atmosphere. Greenhouse effects are real, climate change is real, and frankly terrifying, but carbon credits are jewishly making a quick buck and shuffling around capital and always have been.

I'm an environmentalist type, but I've been around awhile, unlike shitheads like extinction rebellion. Greenpeace can fuck off too. The science exists to mitigate the warming, but anything that negatively influences the bottom line of what is now environmentalism inc will be shut down with the quickness unless you are somehow connected. And no, live in the pod, eat the bugs is not remotely feasible from a humanitarian standpoint. I think some form of that dystopian meme will be what we get, however. I also don't go against the right wing types here in the US opposed to limits on drilling and using petroleum, because if we want a cleaner future, it's nothing but necessary due to the energy content of fossil fuels. What we need is a return to nuclear, but nuclear is not going to build itself without fossil fuels. And I'll be honest here, fossil fuels are not going to go away anyways. They are too abundant and energy dense, most of our society is built around their use. We can all survive just fine if a bit uncomfortable for the probably 200 years it will take to transition mostly away from them, and we have the reserves to do it all, with the politicking and inevitable resource wars.

I don't believe or trust what's become of the environmental left, and I sure as shit don't trust the fucking oil companies who after occupy found a way to control the environmental left. But I remain optimistic in the face of it, and even if my optimism is misplaced, I know that Humanity is absurdly adaptable.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo