4 ms·
The wood has absorbed the equal amount of carbon from the air, which has reverted the previous burning. As long as we won't take down all the trees, it shouldn'
by Nyandalized 7y ago
The wood has absorbed the equal amount of carbon from the air, which has reverted the previous burning. As long as we won't take down all the trees, it shouldn't be accounted as net negative.
- stefan_ 7y agoOf course the other pollutants created from burning wood in population centers kill us when inhaled, so we've traded a minor source of CO2, which might kill us through some correlated highly delayed uncertain mechanism in an uncertain future, for something that is actively toxic and cancerous. Burning wood for heating is the diesel car story all over again. The tradeoff makes zero sense.
- Nyandalized 7y agoBurning anything can be "actively" toxic and cancerous. You can argue about the process of anything, but that shifts the conversation away from the energy source. Wood doesen't have to be burned in X place, and it _could_ be gathered and processed using clean procedures, but they're outside of the scope of wood being carbon neutral.
- nickserv 7y agoThe fossil fuels burned during the planting, harvesting and transport of the wood also needs to be taken account. In that case, unless the entire chain uses renewable energy, it can't be considered carbon neutral.
- Nyandalized 7y agoI wouldn't shift the burden of the entire chain to wood alone. The tools are not wood-exclusive, and should be considered on their own.