5 ms·

Let's not forget the oceanic ecosystems they also remove co2, all 3 should be mentioned all the time.

umvi 8y ago
Build buildings out of wood -> Plant more trees -> build more buildings out of wood -> plant more trees, etc. This can sequester a lot of carbon over time, especially if said wood buildings are in places trees can't easily grow.
- jrace 8y ago
  Cutting down trees can cause a release of stored carbon dioxide. Structures composed of wood do not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When old trees are cu down they should be replaced with new ones
  - umvi 8y ago
    > Structures composed of wood do not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Why not? Just some napkin math here but: Say you have three 10K kg trees. Wood is ~50% carbon, so that means they collectively contain around 15K kg of carbon. Cut them down and turn them into framing lumber and build a house. You now have a house frame with roughly 15K kg of carbon. Now plant 3 trees where the old ones were. Once grown you have now collectively sequestered 30K kg of carbon - half of it is in the trees themselves, half in the house. Keep doing that. After a decade you now you have 1000 houses that have each sequestered 15K kg of carbon from the atmosphere, or 15M kg of carbon.
    - Pfhreak 8y ago
      I think you might be holding a spherical cow. Does your math include the carbon necessary to harvest, transport, cut the lumber? And to haul away the existing structure?
      - umvi 8y ago
        > Does your math include the carbon necessary to harvest, transport, cut the lumber? And to haul away the existing structure? True. I don't know how many lbs of carbon it takes to cut down, transport, and harvest a tree. But I would hope less than 15,000 kg. If the trade off isn't worth it, use electric machinery and transportation powered by nuclear plants.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > > Structures composed of wood do not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Why not? > Why not? On average, does wood in structures release carbon through decay, fire, etc., faster or slower than if the wood was left in a living tree? Intuitively, I don't see any reason to expect effective sequestration. Your analysis seems to suppose that if wood was not used to make a structure, the trees would instantly release their carbon and not be replaced, rather than continuing to grow.
      - umvi 8y ago
        > On average, does wood in structures release carbon through decay, fire, etc., faster or slower than if the wood was left in a living tree? Trees don't grow at the same rate forever. They sprout up quickly and rapidly sequester carbon until they reach maturity, at which point there are diminishing returns in terms of carbon sequestration. Treated wood is much more resistant to decay and fire than untreated wood. > Your analysis seems to suppose that if wood was not used to make a structure, the trees would instantly release their carbon and not be replaced, rather than continuing to grow. No, I'm saying that a mature tree sequesters carbon much more slowly than growing trees. Think about it. It's the same for animals. Babies grow like crazy and gain mass at an amazing rate. Adults... don't. I've been 150 lbs for the past 10 years. My son, however, was 6 lbs 2 years ago, 20 lbs last year, and 40 lbs this year. That means his body is locking away 20 lbs worth of matter per year. Take a mature tree, turn it in to a building. Grow another mature tree in its spot and you've now sequestered effectively twice as much as having never turned the tree into a building. That's what I'm suggesting.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Take a mature tree, turn it in to a building. Grow another mature tree in its spot and you've now sequestered effectively twice as much as having never turned the tree into a building. It takes several (in many cases 5+) decades for a tree to mature (in the sense of growth levelling off.) The average proportion of original wood building remaining after 50 years is, well, less than 100%. Probably significantly, more than if the old tree died and fell, so you could have some net gain, but it's not going to be 100%. (And its going to be even less if you are clearing land for the building.)
    - jrace 8y ago
      A building comprised of wood does not continue to remove carbon - but if that tree continues to live it continues to remove carbon.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        Yeah, but you can plant a new tree, which will sequester carbon at a much faster rate than the mature tree it replaced.
        jrace 8y ago
        yeah....but you do not need to cut down a tree to plant a new one.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        There is limited surface area on the earth where trees will grow. If you want to utilize that maximally to sequester carbon, then you need to cut down mostly grown trees (which have stopped sequestering carbon) to make room for new trees (which can sequester lots of carbon). Then, in order to prevent the carbon contained in the trees you cut down from re-entering the atmosphere, you need to use the wood in some way where it does not decompose or get burned (to build houses, basically).

umvi 8y ago

Build buildings out of wood -> Plant more trees -> build more buildings out of wood -> plant more trees, etc. This can sequester a lot of carbon over time, especially if said wood buildings are in places trees can't easily grow.

jrace 8y ago
Cutting down trees can cause a release of stored carbon dioxide. Structures composed of wood do not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When old trees are cu down they should be replaced with new ones
- umvi 8y ago
  > Structures composed of wood do not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Why not? Just some napkin math here but: Say you have three 10K kg trees. Wood is ~50% carbon, so that means they collectively contain around 15K kg of carbon. Cut them down and turn them into framing lumber and build a house. You now have a house frame with roughly 15K kg of carbon. Now plant 3 trees where the old ones were. Once grown you have now collectively sequestered 30K kg of carbon - half of it is in the trees themselves, half in the house. Keep doing that. After a decade you now you have 1000 houses that have each sequestered 15K kg of carbon from the atmosphere, or 15M kg of carbon.
  - Pfhreak 8y ago
    I think you might be holding a spherical cow. Does your math include the carbon necessary to harvest, transport, cut the lumber? And to haul away the existing structure?
    - umvi 8y ago
      > Does your math include the carbon necessary to harvest, transport, cut the lumber? And to haul away the existing structure? True. I don't know how many lbs of carbon it takes to cut down, transport, and harvest a tree. But I would hope less than 15,000 kg. If the trade off isn't worth it, use electric machinery and transportation powered by nuclear plants.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > > Structures composed of wood do not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Why not? > Why not? On average, does wood in structures release carbon through decay, fire, etc., faster or slower than if the wood was left in a living tree? Intuitively, I don't see any reason to expect effective sequestration. Your analysis seems to suppose that if wood was not used to make a structure, the trees would instantly release their carbon and not be replaced, rather than continuing to grow.
    - umvi 8y ago
      > On average, does wood in structures release carbon through decay, fire, etc., faster or slower than if the wood was left in a living tree? Trees don't grow at the same rate forever. They sprout up quickly and rapidly sequester carbon until they reach maturity, at which point there are diminishing returns in terms of carbon sequestration. Treated wood is much more resistant to decay and fire than untreated wood. > Your analysis seems to suppose that if wood was not used to make a structure, the trees would instantly release their carbon and not be replaced, rather than continuing to grow. No, I'm saying that a mature tree sequesters carbon much more slowly than growing trees. Think about it. It's the same for animals. Babies grow like crazy and gain mass at an amazing rate. Adults... don't. I've been 150 lbs for the past 10 years. My son, however, was 6 lbs 2 years ago, 20 lbs last year, and 40 lbs this year. That means his body is locking away 20 lbs worth of matter per year. Take a mature tree, turn it in to a building. Grow another mature tree in its spot and you've now sequestered effectively twice as much as having never turned the tree into a building. That's what I'm suggesting.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Take a mature tree, turn it in to a building. Grow another mature tree in its spot and you've now sequestered effectively twice as much as having never turned the tree into a building. It takes several (in many cases 5+) decades for a tree to mature (in the sense of growth levelling off.) The average proportion of original wood building remaining after 50 years is, well, less than 100%. Probably significantly, more than if the old tree died and fell, so you could have some net gain, but it's not going to be 100%. (And its going to be even less if you are clearing land for the building.)
  - jrace 8y ago
    A building comprised of wood does not continue to remove carbon - but if that tree continues to live it continues to remove carbon.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Yeah, but you can plant a new tree, which will sequester carbon at a much faster rate than the mature tree it replaced.
      - jrace 8y ago
        yeah....but you do not need to cut down a tree to plant a new one.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        There is limited surface area on the earth where trees will grow. If you want to utilize that maximally to sequester carbon, then you need to cut down mostly grown trees (which have stopped sequestering carbon) to make room for new trees (which can sequester lots of carbon). Then, in order to prevent the carbon contained in the trees you cut down from re-entering the atmosphere, you need to use the wood in some way where it does not decompose or get burned (to build houses, basically).