Kind of low-hanging fruit, since it's the cursed orange website, and even they will soon vote it down to the negatives, but it was such a fresh flavor of unhinged that I had to share it.
Full text: (in response to "Per capita CO₂ emissions Over Time")
Let's count trees per capita.
Planting more trees is commonly regarded by leftists/communists/morons and "science" people (that don't know a method from a hole in the ground) as a dumbass solution.
If you want to reduce carbon dioxide in the air, it's simple. Plant more. Why dipshits from the left are against planting trees and carbon sinks shows me they only care about politics.
Other way around, actually. Trees only sequester carbon while they grow (wood is full of carbon), and they grow slower as they age. A mature tree is more or less carbon neutral.
It's not just the tree itself. It puts humic acid in the soil and carbon gets locked into the soil.
this is what i thought before i fucking listened to posters
welp, gg, no investigation no right to speak asserts itself once again
Sounds like a Mao quote in regards to political cadres.
I don't think this is true. A mature tree is turning over massive amounts of carbon as it performs photosynthesis to feed its entire mass. Carbon removed from the atmosphere both by storage in the mass of the tree permanently but also by the tree's normal operational physiology.
spoiler
It gets even more complicated. After planting trees do have a positive CO2 balance, as the planting, preparation of soil etc. does cost CO2 when it is done by humans (if it isn't there is a good chance that non ideal flora takes over and reduces the amount of trees and their growth rate and with that the height).
However during the growth Trees do save the carbon created by photosynthesis, that is the majority of "saved" (better stored) CO2. The leftover has a more minor part according to my memory. Why is that? Cause the biggest part besides the wood growth is creating leaves and alike, which do survive only a short time and whose CO2 is released quickly unless stored, saved or reused (and even then it is a zero sum game). You are right that in the middle of a trees life span they store the most carbon.
A mature tall tree does store plenty of what could be CO2 equivalent, but the growth rate gets reduced in terms of volume for most (which is something some bioengineers try to change to create trees that basically get really really thick, grow faster, or grow taller when chemical help is given to their root network, or their DNA is changed so that trees are able to produce what they lack themselves). However for Beech they take roughly 20 years to get to strong volume growth, before they are so small that they have little volume added per year. That changes for very old trees again.
What does that mean for climate change? It means that we have to account for multi tree forests in which tree planting, growth and mix are to be under rational control especially when reforesting. There are a couple of trees that grow fast and enable other trees to not have to deal with so much wind, but if you keep them then you will have cultures that aren't resilient and are also not the best in terms of volume gain for long term CO2 storage.