3 ms·
Leaving the constituent trees alive would be far more useful, if for some strange reason you actually use carbon impact as a metric.
by empthought 8y ago
Leaving the constituent trees alive would be far more useful, if for some strange reason you actually use carbon impact as a metric.
- ams6110 8y agoCutting trees, building something more or less permanent with the wood, and planting new trees seems to be the most useful. Most timber used for dimensional lumber comes from managed forests that are continually re-planted as they are cut, not old-growth clear-cutting.
- empthought 8y agoOld, large trees are more effective at capturing carbon than young trees. Source: http://science.time.com/2014/01/15/study-shows-older-trees-absorb-more-carbon/ http://science.time.com/2014/01/15/study-shows-older-trees-a... While good timber land management practices avoid the further loss of existing old trees, they do nothing to foster the growth of more.
- c22 8y agoNot necessarily. A mature forest can only hold so much carbon, old trees decompose, releasing their sequestered carbon back into the environment even while new trees are busy locking it up again. By removing this carbon and turning it into building materials then letting new trees grow to replace them you are keeping more carbon from returning to the atmosphere.
- eesmith 8y agoHome building is a net positive contribution to CO2 levels. Eg, 80 tons for 2-bed house in the UK, says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/14/carbon-footprint-house https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20... . There's the CO2 emissions for harvesting and transport, plus emissions for the foundation, plus plastics for the plumbing, wiring, house wrap, etc. If the goal is CO2 sequestration, build a smaller house and use the saved money to transport bamboo or other fast-growing plants directly to a disused mine, then seal the mine.