I often hear science-adjacent folks stating that a tree needs to be 30 years old before it starts absorbing CO₂, usually paired with the statement that it's therefore pointless to start planting tons of trees now for slowing climate change.
Now, as far as my understanding goes, the former statement is very obviously nonsense. As soon as a tree does photosynthesis, it takes carbon out of the air, which it uses to construct cellulose, which is what wood is made of.
Really, it seems like it would absorb most CO₂ during its initial growth.
I understand that it needs to not be hacked down + burnt, for it to actually store the carbon. But that would still mean, we can plant trees now and not-hack-them-down later.
I also understand that some CO₂ invest may be necessary for actually planting the trees, but it would surprise me, if this takes 30 years to reclaim.
So, where does this number come from and is it being interpreted correctly? Or am I missing something?
Edit: People here seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the number. It might be that I've always heard it from the same person over the years (e.g. in this German video).
That person is a scientist and they definitely should know the fundamentals of trees, but it was usually an offhand comment, so maybe they oversimplified.
Aber dann bist du für mich kein Kulturbanause, wenn du dich damit auseinandergesetzt hast. Bei meinem Vater ist es eher so, dass er vor 30 Jahren vielleicht mal ungünstig auf Rosmanin gebissen hat, aber das ist dann seine Begründung, warum er nicht einmal gemahlenen Basilikum versuchen will. Also halt völlig an den Haaren herbeigezogene Gründe, weil, vermutlich dank toxischer Maskulinität, ihm das Glücklichsein aberzogen wurde.
Worauf ich aber eigentlich hinaus wollte, mein Vater isst diese ganzen Sachen quasi aus Prinzip nicht. Ich muss davon ausgehen, dass er nicht weiß oder nicht wissen will, dass die Gewürze im Dönerfleisch drin sind.