Bamboo can be cultivated 4 continents, except Europe; Rapid growth of 3 to 5 years, develops large amounts of Biomass per day, captures CO2 and its applications in industry (Chemistry and Energy production) are very important. Only between China and India have 25 million hectares planted.

Well, one hectare has approximately 5,200 culms/ha and captures 78 tons CO2/ha-year; In 7 years 550 - 600 ton CO2/ha-year; But it must be taken into account that the root captures 400-450 ton CO2/ha-year and culms 50-100 ton CO2/ha-year.

If we take the amount of 78 ton CO2/ha-year, and we calculate the capture of 28,000,000,000 tonnes CO2/ha-year, it would require 360,000,000 ha/year; It is important to clarify that this data only comes after seventh year with the species Guadua angustifolia Kunth.

Bibliography;

Camargo, J. C. (2012): Growth and carbon stock estimation on a Guadua plantation from the Colombian coffee region.  

Dear Jorge Montoya.

I would say emphatic YES.  Bamboo can contribute to sustainable development. In Kenya, The Green-belt Movement, started by Nobel Price Winner, the late Prof. Wangari Maathai, has been running an initiative for quite some time now, to promote planting of Indigenous Bamboo to facilitate conservation, climate mitigation benefits, fuel source (firewood and charcoal) and economic opportunities through green businesses for and by local communities. I've seen this project making a difference in Kenya.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0ahUKEwiL4vz9-NLQAhUMrI8KHfhUAksQFghOMAs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwpower.uonbi.ac.ke%2Fbamboo-biomass-an-overlooked-energy-resource%2F&usg=AFQjCNFMalMzpuwk-jMUsPwQGNaQRw4mMQ

Dear Rashid/Dear Kenneth;

Rashid your comments are valid and I thank you !!, but it is also important the analysis that Kenneth argues, I understand their concerns, but it is important to keep in mind biological times and not geological times !!, the amount of CO2 is already caused and it is difficult to find a long term solution !!, but we must act now !!, the most friendly among the timber species is the Bamboo. There is no complete happiness, Sorry!

So lets see - if we're growing 360 million MORE ha of biomass, roasting it to turn it to char, and burying it (or really, just making a big mountain of char, cause that is cheaper) and using the light ends that are driven off to drive the system, that would keep pace with the rate at which we are currently consuming fossil fuels.  But wouldn't allow for any incremental increases in economic activity (assuming that economic activity is not completely separated from fossil fuels) and so that land area would have to increase with time. 

If we do this on land that isn't otherwise usable for agriculture, then we will have an additional 12 million ha per year that would become available, except it will be soils that are completely depleted or subject to drought.  So that won't work.  If we do this on land that is only barely usable for agriculture, then we will only have to clear a small fraction of additional land to make up for it, but you probably wouldn't get the same productivity from the bamboo.  Of course, clearing that land would have to be done in a manner that removes the carbon from the biosphere, too - charcoal is a good way.  Maybe only 2 out of 12 million ha per year, if we're lucky...  Then, in 30 years, we'll be caught up on carbon emissions, but down (12 x 30) = 360 million ha in farmland, and (2 x 30) million ha in scrub land.

Now, to be fair, the single largest carbon sink is in the soils of the world.  25% of the carbon in the atmosphere got there by land-use changes that released that carbon..  Conventional agriculture, with the vast application of nutrients and the massive soil erosion and transport, coupled with conventional land development, converting the best farmland into cities, are paving us into a very tight corner. 

Bamboo could be planted and allowed to rot, building up forest soils as a carbon sink on poor farmland that has enough water (denuded areas in the Amazon Rainforest?).  On the Canadian grasslands, there used to be 80 kg of carbon per square meter tied up in the organic matter (rootmass, old grass, topsoils, etc), and extending down to the limit of the roots and frost.  Forest soils are also very rich, and could be as much as 50 kg of carbon per square meter (although much less in tropical conditions).  So if we do set aside that much land to carbon sequestering (about equal to 6 tunes the agricultural land mass of Kenya), what do we do with the people and species currently using the marginal land?  I suspect it would be better to plant native plants, so there wouldn't be ecosystem problems, but then you might not get the same rate of sequestering and thus ultimate carbon storage. 

Where-ever you plant this forest will be constantly eyeing the biomass, thinking that they could use it for some economic purpose.  The rest of the world would have to be prepared to finance it, to convince the community to not just cut it all down and burn it.  Even if that is only a few dollars rent per ha on marginal land that otherwise would have very little value, your annual costs are more than $1Billion/year.

I don't know if it is a bad idea, but it isn't very likely to be achieved. 

Better to stop burning the fossil fuels in the first place.

We know that this is the real alternative !, but we also know the interests that exist !, esteemed Douglas, Bamboo brings other environmental benefits (water, biodiversity, ..), economic (energy, industry, ..) that can compensate some negative aspects of its use! And the most important, the social benefit !!

Sorry Jorge, but you've nailed the point perfectly.  The common thought is '... that can compensate some negative aspects...", and that's the problem.  The common thought has to be 'how do we ensure the needs of the local community are met, in less than 24 hours per day for each person, using less Ecological Footprint than the biocapacity of the land that the community manages?"  That's really hard when we think of the economy being reliant on financial growth, or we identify symptoms of overconsumption as the underlying problem.  You can sell the surplus (after the needs of the community are met), only once you know what the surplus really is.   The current assumption is that you can sell anything to raise the cash to go shopping to fill your gaps - that's based on the assumption that infinite growth is possible and 'good'.  Neither are currently true.

Naïve is a place from which all students begin to learn and to teach the teachers.  If you start out knowing all the answers, you can't learn anything.  If you want to continue this conversation off-line, I'd be happy to show you how the community would set it's own boundaries.  It isn't really germane to the question.

Dear Douglas, his comments are interesting, but what is sought are solutions that are comprehensive; It can not be ignored that there must be sustainable development, it is impossible to disconnect economic development!, an adaptive development to the current conditions of environmental and social deterioration that is a priority for the planet. Also more important than stopping the production of fossil fuels, is to stop the demand of these!, this is where universities and higher education in general must bring awareness.

This is a very interesting conversation. May I ask how you are defining sustainable development first? because I saw the conversation starting with carbon sequestering but what about the other aspects of socio-economic development?

Jorge, others have said for a long time, think global, act local.  If there are comprehensive solutions, let them be explored locally where appropriate.

And Rashmi raises an excellent point - if you are addressing climate change as a problem, and you intend development (in this case, 'sustainable' development) to address it, how do you define your terms? 

I think Kenneth is right!, and it gives a very integral vision, but with Venn Diagrama is giving me the reason with the bamboo, I already said, Bamboo is the most sustainable species! Social and economic. We can not think in a unidisciplinary way, we have to think in an integrated way and give inputs where the three circles of the Venn diagram predominate. With all the products that we can manufacture with Bamboo in the countries where you can grow it, with local solutions of construction of house and its furniture, schools, buildings of 3 or 4 floors, construction of bridges, etc. In addition with its fibers can be manufactured and replace the entire industry of ABS plastic and Polycarbonates of the computer housings and cellular telephones. That is to say perfectly it could mention 500 different products from the textiles and garments, until the production of beer !!, we could replace 90% of the products of wood !!. Finally the energy in the production of pellets and briquettes for the generation of thermal energy, as they are doing in India in the production of Gasifiers, with more than 800 units installed by TERI institute of New Dehli. In the last 10 years, bamboo has generated million jobs in China and India.

INBAR says, there are over 1500 documented uses of Bamboo. Well, when we look at all the new and old ways bamboo is being used, this may even be true. But till now, I haven't found a list. 

Jorge, if you are taking Bamboo as a whole lot of species, then we can say it is the most sustainable, but not all bamboo contribute equally. And not every type of bamboo can grow everywhere. Won't it be compensating for itself? Studies have shown that Bamboo can indeed add to the income but this is so case sensitive that, it does not always apply.  Can it really be generalized?

Dear Rashmi, of course you can not generalize with all bamboos, especially you should take into account giant bamboos, those that grow more than 12 m, including Guadua angustifolia, Dendrocalamos asper, the Phyllostachys ... (with several Species!), etc, for each site you must do studies of environmental conditions and their different applications!

The use of alternative plant species in construction, such as bamboo, is an alternative with environmental and social advantages. Undoubtedly, reducing the consumption of native species has environmental advantages. However, it is always necessary to assess the impacts of each activity, seeking, as far as possible, to add maximum sustainability to production.