4 ms·

The CO2 captured by the tree when it grows is captured in the biomass; the wood itself chemically contains carbon, which stays trapped until the wood is burned.

The CO2 captured by the tree when it grows is captured in the biomass; the wood itself chemically contains carbon, which stays trapped until the wood is burned. (cf the carbon-neutral cycle of biofuels.) Basically an organic form of carbon sequestration that happens to produce useful building materials. The issue of replanting is addressed at the end of the article, when they talk about sustainability - specifically in the context of having enough forest space that wood can be grown fast enough to keep up with demand.

ekianjo 9y ago
> when they talk about sustainability Problem is two-fold: - Trees take quite a long time to grow - Humans are notoriously bad at planning for the long term What could go wrong? If the demands picks up the most likely outcome is an increased pace of deforestation.
- adventured 9y ago
  > Humans are notoriously bad at planning for the long term Quite the opposite in fact. Humans are better than any other living things on the planet at planning over extremely long durations in relation to their life expectancy. Few other living things can even plan beyond a very, very short duration to begin with. We do 20, 50, 100 year business & government agreements. We build power grids that last decades or a century. We also frequently plot out power supply / generation for our grids that extend over many decades. We put up buildings that last centuries. We create water systems that last centuries. We implement government structures and programs that last decades or centuries by design. We create places of education, such as universities, that last centuries. We frequently plant renewable forests that require planning over decades. We regularly choose careers and life pathways (eg marriage, children) meant to last decades. When it comes to this planet, we're extraordinary at long-term planning, even though we're also obviously not perfect at it.
  - ericd 9y ago
    It's possible to be simultaneously bad at something and still the best. I think the idea that we're bad at planning comes partly from the fact that we fail to meet our expectations very regularly.
  - tibu 9y ago
    Still we have less and less rainforests. Maybe some of us are good in planning, but the questions is what's in focus. Money or sustainability. I think nowadays it is still money.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Can I disagree with some of your statements? > We put up buildings that last centuries. Not true anymore, Most modern constructions don't last very long. And this is survivorship bias as well, since most of what remains from previous centuries is just what was strong enough to withstand time. The large majority has disappeared and you just don't see it. > We implement government structures and programs that last decades or centuries by design. Look at the political map 100 years ago vs now, nothing lasts for very long. Look at currencies 100 years ago and now, you'd be surprised how much has changed as well. Political systems are by far the most unstable ones of your examples. You'd be lucky to be in a country for you whole lifetime without a drastic political or economic change. > We frequently plant renewable forests that require planning over decades. Yet we don't take care very well of ancient forests that were there for hundreds of millenia before us. Look what's happening in South America. > We regularly choose careers and life pathways (eg marriage, children) meant to last decades. The rate of divorces, single-parent families in modern times seems to indicate we are pretty bad at making such choices. They are "meant" to last decades but they usually don't. > When it comes to this planet, we're extraordinary at long-term planning We have also found ways to completely destroy and pollute our environment in a very short time, while the footprint of other species is much lower than humans overall. Overfishing has emptied fishes from many seas around the world. Numerous species are disappearing as we destroy their habitat. That's certainly not the signs of "species that plan well".
    - blattimwind 9y ago
      >> We regularly choose careers and life pathways (eg marriage, children) meant to last decades. > The rate of divorces, single-parent families in modern times seems to indicate we are pretty bad at making such choices. They are "meant" to last decades but they usually don't. This is mostly a "don't want to", not a "can't". Being married "only" once in your life (or having children...) is apparently considered boring, old-fashioned and backwards by many.
- m_eiman 9y ago
  If there's a need, we're able to plan ahead. For example: "On Visingsö you find Europe's largest oak tree forest. The oaks were planted here by the Swedish government in the 1830s to be used by the navy's ship builders. When the oaks were ready for harvesting in 1975 they were offered to the navy, which declined to buy them." Excuse my poor translation, full article in Swedish here: https://www.sydved.se/skogsagarliv/fran-vara-skogar/ekarna-som-flottan-inte-vill-ha https://www.sydved.se/skogsagarliv/fran-vara-skogar/ekarna-s...
- fsloth 9y ago
  Industry consumes lumber like people breath air. Renewability of forests has been under serious consideration literally for centuries.
jon_richards 9y ago
I think I read old rainforests and the like are actually carbon neutral because of this. Since the biomass is already at peak capacity, the carbon release from decomposition is equal to the carbon sequestration from growth.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  As long as some of the old trees end up underwater in swamps each year they could bind CO2 for a few thousand years. That said I agree that your basic argument sounds reasonable.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    A lot longer than that. Coal is carbon from ancient trees.
    - reitanqild 9y ago
      Edit: I feel slightly stupid now. That might often be a good sign I think :-)
    - Gravityloss 9y ago
      IIRC that was before wood eating molds evolved. After that biomass hasn't accumulated long term so much anymore. We are eating spoils. Bogs can be wet enough so you can have airless conditions for moss that becomes peat and maybe ultimately can become coal under pressure but it's a really really slow process.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Coal deposits took a long time to be created, so it's hard to tell if they are still being created. Are forests net sequestering 1/1,000,000 of an inch per year of carbon? That would produce a lot of coal over the next 300 million years. Remember, roots can go 100+ feet underground.
      - dredmorbius 9y ago

ekianjo 9y ago

> when they talk about sustainability Problem is two-fold: - Trees take quite a long time to grow - Humans are notoriously bad at planning for the long term What could go wrong? If the demands picks up the most likely outcome is an increased pace of deforestation.

adventured 9y ago
> Humans are notoriously bad at planning for the long term Quite the opposite in fact. Humans are better than any other living things on the planet at planning over extremely long durations in relation to their life expectancy. Few other living things can even plan beyond a very, very short duration to begin with. We do 20, 50, 100 year business & government agreements. We build power grids that last decades or a century. We also frequently plot out power supply / generation for our grids that extend over many decades. We put up buildings that last centuries. We create water systems that last centuries. We implement government structures and programs that last decades or centuries by design. We create places of education, such as universities, that last centuries. We frequently plant renewable forests that require planning over decades. We regularly choose careers and life pathways (eg marriage, children) meant to last decades. When it comes to this planet, we're extraordinary at long-term planning, even though we're also obviously not perfect at it.
- ericd 9y ago
  It's possible to be simultaneously bad at something and still the best. I think the idea that we're bad at planning comes partly from the fact that we fail to meet our expectations very regularly.
- tibu 9y ago
  Still we have less and less rainforests. Maybe some of us are good in planning, but the questions is what's in focus. Money or sustainability. I think nowadays it is still money.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Can I disagree with some of your statements? > We put up buildings that last centuries. Not true anymore, Most modern constructions don't last very long. And this is survivorship bias as well, since most of what remains from previous centuries is just what was strong enough to withstand time. The large majority has disappeared and you just don't see it. > We implement government structures and programs that last decades or centuries by design. Look at the political map 100 years ago vs now, nothing lasts for very long. Look at currencies 100 years ago and now, you'd be surprised how much has changed as well. Political systems are by far the most unstable ones of your examples. You'd be lucky to be in a country for you whole lifetime without a drastic political or economic change. > We frequently plant renewable forests that require planning over decades. Yet we don't take care very well of ancient forests that were there for hundreds of millenia before us. Look what's happening in South America. > We regularly choose careers and life pathways (eg marriage, children) meant to last decades. The rate of divorces, single-parent families in modern times seems to indicate we are pretty bad at making such choices. They are "meant" to last decades but they usually don't. > When it comes to this planet, we're extraordinary at long-term planning We have also found ways to completely destroy and pollute our environment in a very short time, while the footprint of other species is much lower than humans overall. Overfishing has emptied fishes from many seas around the world. Numerous species are disappearing as we destroy their habitat. That's certainly not the signs of "species that plan well".
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    >> We regularly choose careers and life pathways (eg marriage, children) meant to last decades. > The rate of divorces, single-parent families in modern times seems to indicate we are pretty bad at making such choices. They are "meant" to last decades but they usually don't. This is mostly a "don't want to", not a "can't". Being married "only" once in your life (or having children...) is apparently considered boring, old-fashioned and backwards by many.
m_eiman 9y ago
If there's a need, we're able to plan ahead. For example: "On Visingsö you find Europe's largest oak tree forest. The oaks were planted here by the Swedish government in the 1830s to be used by the navy's ship builders. When the oaks were ready for harvesting in 1975 they were offered to the navy, which declined to buy them." Excuse my poor translation, full article in Swedish here: https://www.sydved.se/skogsagarliv/fran-vara-skogar/ekarna-som-flottan-inte-vill-ha https://www.sydved.se/skogsagarliv/fran-vara-skogar/ekarna-s...
fsloth 9y ago
Industry consumes lumber like people breath air. Renewability of forests has been under serious consideration literally for centuries.

jon_richards 9y ago

I think I read old rainforests and the like are actually carbon neutral because of this. Since the biomass is already at peak capacity, the carbon release from decomposition is equal to the carbon sequestration from growth.

reitanqild 9y ago
As long as some of the old trees end up underwater in swamps each year they could bind CO2 for a few thousand years. That said I agree that your basic argument sounds reasonable.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  A lot longer than that. Coal is carbon from ancient trees.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Edit: I feel slightly stupid now. That might often be a good sign I think :-)
  - Gravityloss 9y ago
    IIRC that was before wood eating molds evolved. After that biomass hasn't accumulated long term so much anymore. We are eating spoils. Bogs can be wet enough so you can have airless conditions for moss that becomes peat and maybe ultimately can become coal under pressure but it's a really really slow process.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Coal deposits took a long time to be created, so it's hard to tell if they are still being created. Are forests net sequestering 1/1,000,000 of an inch per year of carbon? That would produce a lot of coal over the next 300 million years. Remember, roots can go 100+ feet underground.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago