That carbon will stay sequestered if the trees are cut down, and the wood is used to build something that lasts for a long time.
Comment on Inspiring. Innovating.
McWizard@lemmy.zip 3 weeks agoCorrect me if I’m wrong but as far as I know trees are no real solution. Yes, they take CO2 to grow, but everything is released again when they die and are consumed by bacteria which just didn’t exist a few million years ago. So they only ever store what the forest is made of and not a bit more. They will rot and never ever become coal again. So while it sounds nice to plant a forest and there are other benefits, when if we planted a forest on every inch of the planet it would not solve our problem. Am I wrong here? Tell me!
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
A long time isn’t forever. Wood burns and wood rots. How many wooden structures from over a thousand years ago are still around?
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m just saying we aren’t helping ourselves with this plastic throw-away culture we’ve developed. Things like fine wood furniture can last as long as the owner wants it to. Every time something is replaced, it ends up somewhere in the environment, and we have the carbon footprint of something new being made. Beautifully made objects tend to be restored when they get old and ratty. When was the last time a Frank Lloyd Wright house was torn down to be replaced by a McMansion? That wood is sequestered.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The carbon in that wood is only sequestered until it rots or burns. It may be a hundred years, it may be a thousand years, but it has not been removed from the carbon cycle. Again, at best, you’re kicking the can down the road.
leftytighty@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
The net new total biomass of the forests would all be captured carbon. Yes dead trees may release it again but the total amount of trees would be higher and act as a large buffer.