3 ms·

That means a global / multinational movement against governments cutting trees (eg for lucrative construction deals) is needed.

GrumpyNl 7y ago
Buy a little property and plant some trees, doesnt have to be that expensive. Thats what i did.
pjkundert 7y ago
Massive reforestation would eventually reduce cost of wood construction, allowing harvesting and replanting to sequester even more carbon.
lopmotr 7y ago
Cutting for wood doesn't hurt since the carbon is still trapped in the wood. In fact it helps since they regrow new trees that sequester carbon faster in their early years than mature trees.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  > since they regrow new trees that sequester carbon faster in their early years than mature trees Is that actually the case? Wouldn't a larger tree's volume mean it consumes a ton more Carbon than a smaller tree, even if the smaller tree is rapidly growing?
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    Turns out it's not so simple: Young trees sequester carbon faster: https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbo... Old trees sequester carbon faster: https://theconversation.com/big-old-trees-grow-faster-making-them-vital-carbon-absorbers-22104 https://theconversation.com/big-old-trees-grow-faster-making... Though when you consider forestry has the goal of producing sequestered carbon (wood), you would think they'd find a fast way to do that. In my country, commercial forestry is done with non-native species that are planted by the forest owners and obviously must be replanted for them to keep operating. They harvest them after about 20 years of growth. I guess that's the age when further growth would be too slow to be economical.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  There's been studies showing the rate of sequestration increases as the tree gets older. So there's a disadvantage when young. We should find a way to discourage cutting mature forest and rainforest as well as planting new.
- hristov 7y ago
  That is the superficial thinking but unfortunately it is not true. First when they cut trees, they do not haul in the branches and the leaves. There is no money in that. The branches and the leaves are all cut out and left in place with just the main trunk being hauled to the sawmill. The branches and the leaves then dry out and rot releasing their carbon. This means that big part of the trees mass (probably at least 50%) does not get its carbon sequestered. (For a similar reason freshly logged forests are a much bigger fire danger than forests that have not been logged at all). Secondly unfortunately, in general loggers mostly do not regrow the areas they cut down. Although they do talk about regrowing whenever they are talking to the media, in reality the areas regrown are far less than the areas cut down and thus the earth is losing a lot of tree cover every year.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Dunno what kind of tree it is, but I do see tree plantations where each was clearly planted at the same time in a grid, and in a race to the sky, the trees don’t bother with outward branches much, just the ever rising canopy.
m463 7y ago
If carbon offsets are properly modeled, planting and cutting (profit/cost) would work itself out. I think of how the acid rain stuff seemed to have worked out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program

GrumpyNl 7y ago

Buy a little property and plant some trees, doesnt have to be that expensive. Thats what i did.

pjkundert 7y ago

Massive reforestation would eventually reduce cost of wood construction, allowing harvesting and replanting to sequester even more carbon.

lopmotr 7y ago

Cutting for wood doesn't hurt since the carbon is still trapped in the wood. In fact it helps since they regrow new trees that sequester carbon faster in their early years than mature trees.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
> since they regrow new trees that sequester carbon faster in their early years than mature trees Is that actually the case? Wouldn't a larger tree's volume mean it consumes a ton more Carbon than a smaller tree, even if the smaller tree is rapidly growing?
- lopmotr 7y ago
  Turns out it's not so simple: Young trees sequester carbon faster: https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbo... Old trees sequester carbon faster: https://theconversation.com/big-old-trees-grow-faster-making-them-vital-carbon-absorbers-22104 https://theconversation.com/big-old-trees-grow-faster-making... Though when you consider forestry has the goal of producing sequestered carbon (wood), you would think they'd find a fast way to do that. In my country, commercial forestry is done with non-native species that are planted by the forest owners and obviously must be replanted for them to keep operating. They harvest them after about 20 years of growth. I guess that's the age when further growth would be too slow to be economical.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
There's been studies showing the rate of sequestration increases as the tree gets older. So there's a disadvantage when young. We should find a way to discourage cutting mature forest and rainforest as well as planting new.
hristov 7y ago
That is the superficial thinking but unfortunately it is not true. First when they cut trees, they do not haul in the branches and the leaves. There is no money in that. The branches and the leaves are all cut out and left in place with just the main trunk being hauled to the sawmill. The branches and the leaves then dry out and rot releasing their carbon. This means that big part of the trees mass (probably at least 50%) does not get its carbon sequestered. (For a similar reason freshly logged forests are a much bigger fire danger than forests that have not been logged at all). Secondly unfortunately, in general loggers mostly do not regrow the areas they cut down. Although they do talk about regrowing whenever they are talking to the media, in reality the areas regrown are far less than the areas cut down and thus the earth is losing a lot of tree cover every year.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Dunno what kind of tree it is, but I do see tree plantations where each was clearly planted at the same time in a grid, and in a race to the sky, the trees don’t bother with outward branches much, just the ever rising canopy.

m463 7y ago

If carbon offsets are properly modeled, planting and cutting (profit/cost) would work itself out. I think of how the acid rain stuff seemed to have worked out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program