4 ms·
Would this not be just another form of kicking the can? In particular once these buildings are demolished and replaced with new ones, I don't imagine that the o
by rjf72 7y ago
Would this not be just another form of kicking the can? In particular once these buildings are demolished and replaced with new ones, I don't imagine that the old wood would (or even could) be reused. Instead it'd be sent to a landfill and decay at which point its stored carbon would be released.
In favor of this regardless. Wood is so much more pleasant on the eyes, and creating an incentive for huge sustainable forests is an awesome thing any way you look at it. But unless I'm missing something, framing this as something that could effectively mitigate against increasing emissions seems to be misleading.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoPossibly you could avoid emissions involved in creating cement and concrete which is ~5% of total CO2.
- perfunctory 7y ago> Instead it'd be sent to a landfill and decay at which point its stored carbon would be released. Even then it's still carbon neutral. Or am I missing something? Or, since carbon is gonna be released anyway, we could burn it and make some energy as a bonus.
- kaybe 7y agoApart from the energy used in harvesting, transport and construction (if not carbon-neutral), yes. However, what you actually do is add a new carbon sink, with a flux in and a flux out, just like the eco-system, the ocean, the atmosphere etc. As long as you keep the outflow lower or equal than the inflow it's a net win. Edit: Another point - we might not be in a position to think about this at the moment, but we should not store all available carbon in rock form (some of the carbon sequestration ideas lead to rockform carbon basically) because our descendents may really need it one day.