3 ms·

Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars. Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A livin

Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars. Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A living tree is, by definition, a CO2 sequestering machine. Also, throwing paper and organic matter into modern landfills, which promote anaerobic breakdown, produces methane. As you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

ars 16y ago
A growing tree is a "CO2 sequestering machine". A living tree is not, since when it dies all the CO2 is released. The best thing is to grow them, then cut them down and bury them in a way that prevents them from decomposing. As for methane, only a small amount of the organic matter turns into methane, plus while methane may be potent, it doesn't last long.
jessriedel 16y ago
Just to make Ars's point clear: the equilibium state of a forest is carbon neutral. Trees absorb carbon as they grown, then release it after death as they decay. Compared to an empty field, creating a forest stores a fixed, one-shot amount of carbon (however much carbon is in the trees at a given time); it is not a sequestering machine. If you could replace the forest with landfill which was inert and held more carbon in the form of paper than the forest, this would give a net decrease in atmospheric carbon. Obviously, there are issues of decreased species diversity, chemical leaching, etc., when replacing a forest with a landfill that this account doesn't consider.
nwatson 16y ago
Assuming the decay from paper-cup-watse -> CO2-and-other-greenhouse-gases is very slow (compared to the regrowth time for a tree) then cutting down trees, turning them into paper cups, and burying the cups is an excellent carbon-sequestering tool. Compare the two approaches: (1) don't cut the tree == one tree-worth of carbon sequestered (as the tree matures its carbon-weight does not grow as quickly) (2) cut down a tree 5 times in 20 years and create 5 trees-worth of cups and put them in a landfill == 5-trees of landfill carbon + 1 immature tree of carbon (more realistically probably not 6x but 2x-3x)
oiuytgfrtgyhuji 16y ago
Only young growing trees absorb much CO2, paper cups are made from farmed plantations of young fast growing trees. The best thing (from a CO2 point of view) would be to cut down old growth hardwood rain-forest and plant pine saplings which you then cut down and make into cups which you bury! ps Actually about 75% of CO2 is absorbed by algea, it's the oceans that make oxygen not rainforests

ars 16y ago

A growing tree is a "CO2 sequestering machine". A living tree is not, since when it dies all the CO2 is released. The best thing is to grow them, then cut them down and bury them in a way that prevents them from decomposing. As for methane, only a small amount of the organic matter turns into methane, plus while methane may be potent, it doesn't last long.

jessriedel 16y ago

Just to make Ars's point clear: the equilibium state of a forest is carbon neutral. Trees absorb carbon as they grown, then release it after death as they decay. Compared to an empty field, creating a forest stores a fixed, one-shot amount of carbon (however much carbon is in the trees at a given time); it is not a sequestering machine. If you could replace the forest with landfill which was inert and held more carbon in the form of paper than the forest, this would give a net decrease in atmospheric carbon. Obviously, there are issues of decreased species diversity, chemical leaching, etc., when replacing a forest with a landfill that this account doesn't consider.

nwatson 16y ago

Assuming the decay from paper-cup-watse -> CO2-and-other-greenhouse-gases is very slow (compared to the regrowth time for a tree) then cutting down trees, turning them into paper cups, and burying the cups is an excellent carbon-sequestering tool. Compare the two approaches: (1) don't cut the tree == one tree-worth of carbon sequestered (as the tree matures its carbon-weight does not grow as quickly) (2) cut down a tree 5 times in 20 years and create 5 trees-worth of cups and put them in a landfill == 5-trees of landfill carbon + 1 immature tree of carbon (more realistically probably not 6x but 2x-3x)

oiuytgfrtgyhuji 16y ago

Only young growing trees absorb much CO2, paper cups are made from farmed plantations of young fast growing trees. The best thing (from a CO2 point of view) would be to cut down old growth hardwood rain-forest and plant pine saplings which you then cut down and make into cups which you bury! ps Actually about 75% of CO2 is absorbed by algea, it's the oceans that make oxygen not rainforests