2 ms·
The problem with deforestation isn't just the CO2 emission, but, most importantly, the missed future CO2 absorption. At least, that what I was thinking about.
by danmaz74 11y ago
The problem with deforestation isn't just the CO2 emission, but, most importantly, the missed future CO2 absorption. At least, that what I was thinking about.
- masklinn 11y agoGrown forests are carbon stores, not carbon sinks: the carbon is locked into trees and released when the trees die (some of it might get sunk into the soil but IIRC it's a very small fraction). When the forest does not grow, its day-to-day carbon impact is pretty much neutral, growing trees are balanced by decaying dead trees. There's limited "missed future CO2 absorption" to deforestation, but there's a huge "immediate" released of stored carbon.
- danmaz74 11y agoMy recollection from school years is that the fraction that goes to the soil is significant, but I don't know about more recent data...
- vidarh 11y ago> but there's a huge "immediate" released of stored carbon. Surely that depends on where the tree goes. If it's burned, or left rotting, sure. If it's harvested for building materials, might it not even lead to increase storage of carbon overall.
- DennisP 11y agoI used to think old forests were carbon neutral but an argument prompted me to google, and I found this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7210/full/nature07276.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7210/full/nature0... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/old-growth-forests-help-combat-climate-change/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/old-growth-forests... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910133934.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910133934.ht...
- Gravityloss 11y agoAtmospheric carbon per area is about 1 kg/square meter. (x) It's not inconceivable that trees could store roughly similar orders of magnitude of carbon per area. x: 0,3 * 5e18 * 400/1e6 / (7000000*7000000*4*3,14)