4 ms·

Don’t you then need to worry about enforcement mechanisms to keep those trees from getting cut down? If they’re all harvested after say n decades, there’s no ne

Don’t you then need to worry about enforcement mechanisms to keep those trees from getting cut down? If they’re all harvested after say n decades, there’s no net effect on climate.

tomjakubowski 7y ago
How does it follow that there's no net effect on climate (or amount of atmospheric carbon) if the tree is cut down? I can only see that if the timber is burned for fuel. If someone instead carved the timber up into N skateboards, modulo waste, the carbon would stay with the skateboards.
- kingbirdy 7y ago
  Skateboards don't stay skateboards forever. Eventually they'll be thrown out, where they'll degrade & eventually decompose, re-releasing the stored CO2.
  - ralusek 7y ago
    Mostly into the ground, no? Isn't that how petroleum was formed in the first place?
    - kingbirdy 7y ago
      It depends entirely on where the skateboards and other wood-derived waste ends up. If it's not properly disposed of (e.g. litter), then it will release most/all of it into the atmosphere. If it's incinerated, it's all released. If it's in a landfill, it depends on whether and how effectively the landfill is sealed.
    - fucking_tragedy 7y ago
      Probably not. Most of the oil we find comes from a period when very few organisms could break down waste from dead trees and plants.
  - finnh 7y ago
    True, but my model of CO2 is that its damage is proportional to the area under the curve (quanity CO2 * time in atmosphere). So deferring that C02 release by 10 years is strictly a win, b/c you haven't incurred the climate effects of that C02 for those 10 years.
- bacon_waffle 7y ago
  Even if the trees are burned for fuel, that may offset some amount of burning fossil fuel and so be a net win.
simonebrunozzi 7y ago
When a tree grows, it captures carbon. If after N years it is cut, in most cases that carbon is NOT going to go back to the atmosphere. Most CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels (oil, etc), NOT from voluntary wood burning.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Wood burning is not the only way to release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Just cutting a tree and letting it decompose also releases the same carbon. You need to store it in wood form, or bury it deep.
est31 7y ago
Forests have evolved into recycling ecosystems. When a tree dies naturally, it gets decomposed by various fungi and other organisms which, over time, release the stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. So the CO2 is released one way or another. What matters is that the living tree stores CO2 in its wood. Cutting and replanting might even increase the amount of stored CO2 because any wood that's used in the building industry is wood that doesn't decompose for decades to come. Wood you cut down to burn right thereafter probably reduces the storage capacity, but it's not zero due to the living trees! Forests used to be real carbon sinks meaning that trees would just die without decomposing, because life hasn't figured out yet how to decompose it. This is how coal was formed around the globe. Maybe some better technology to sequester CO2 emerges. But planting trees is a good approach for the start. If we want to slow down climate change, the CO2 sequestration industry will have to become huge within the next decades.
- cschwarm 7y ago
  Burying biochar (the superset of charcoal, basically) in old coal mines or other geological structures is a feasible way for long-term storage. The carbon content can be up to 90%, depending on the method. Biochar can be made from nearly all forms of biomass as long as it's dry enought.
  - antisemiotic 7y ago
    Now I wonder how would old coal miners feel if you told them nowadays the coal is supposed to go in the ground.
    - cschwarm 7y ago
      I think, they would be happy to keep their jobs and get paid for several decades to come. Also, the coal companies wouldn't have to write off their investments, since some of their technology could probably be reused.
ralusek 7y ago
What? You want them cut down and used in carbon storing areas, like construction. Trees capture way more carbon while growing, so ideally you cut them down and replant them.
BurningFrog 7y ago
How long do you think this climate crisis will last? If you think it will be over, or at least completely unrecognizable, in 50 years your - in itself valid - concern doesn't matter. If I imagine people 50 or 100 years ago trying to plan to solve our problems in 2019, knowing what they did then, I don't think they could have accomplished much of anything of substance, even with the best intentions and the commitment of huge resources.
gnud 7y ago
If you cover an area with trees that is today not covered with trees, that area will absorb CO2 from the atomsphere. Even if the trees die or are cut down, as long as new ones are allowed to grow, that area will absorb roughly constant amount of CO2. Now, if we can harvest some trees regularly, and use them to replace plastics or fossil fuels, then that's a win for the environment even if those harvested trees end up releasing their CO2 back to the atmosphere, because we didn't introduce any _more_ CO2, we just recycled what we already have.

Don’t you then need to worry about enforcement mechanisms to keep those trees from getting cut down? If they’re all harvested after say n decades, there’s no net effect on climate.

tomjakubowski 7y ago

How does it follow that there's no net effect on climate (or amount of atmospheric carbon) if the tree is cut down? I can only see that if the timber is burned for fuel. If someone instead carved the timber up into N skateboards, modulo waste, the carbon would stay with the skateboards.

kingbirdy 7y ago
Skateboards don't stay skateboards forever. Eventually they'll be thrown out, where they'll degrade & eventually decompose, re-releasing the stored CO2.
- ralusek 7y ago
  Mostly into the ground, no? Isn't that how petroleum was formed in the first place?
  - kingbirdy 7y ago
    It depends entirely on where the skateboards and other wood-derived waste ends up. If it's not properly disposed of (e.g. litter), then it will release most/all of it into the atmosphere. If it's incinerated, it's all released. If it's in a landfill, it depends on whether and how effectively the landfill is sealed.
  - fucking_tragedy 7y ago
    Probably not. Most of the oil we find comes from a period when very few organisms could break down waste from dead trees and plants.
- finnh 7y ago
  True, but my model of CO2 is that its damage is proportional to the area under the curve (quanity CO2 * time in atmosphere). So deferring that C02 release by 10 years is strictly a win, b/c you haven't incurred the climate effects of that C02 for those 10 years.
bacon_waffle 7y ago
Even if the trees are burned for fuel, that may offset some amount of burning fossil fuel and so be a net win.

simonebrunozzi 7y ago

When a tree grows, it captures carbon. If after N years it is cut, in most cases that carbon is NOT going to go back to the atmosphere. Most CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels (oil, etc), NOT from voluntary wood burning.

icebraining 7y ago
Wood burning is not the only way to release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Just cutting a tree and letting it decompose also releases the same carbon. You need to store it in wood form, or bury it deep.

est31 7y ago

Forests have evolved into recycling ecosystems. When a tree dies naturally, it gets decomposed by various fungi and other organisms which, over time, release the stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. So the CO2 is released one way or another. What matters is that the living tree stores CO2 in its wood. Cutting and replanting might even increase the amount of stored CO2 because any wood that's used in the building industry is wood that doesn't decompose for decades to come. Wood you cut down to burn right thereafter probably reduces the storage capacity, but it's not zero due to the living trees! Forests used to be real carbon sinks meaning that trees would just die without decomposing, because life hasn't figured out yet how to decompose it. This is how coal was formed around the globe. Maybe some better technology to sequester CO2 emerges. But planting trees is a good approach for the start. If we want to slow down climate change, the CO2 sequestration industry will have to become huge within the next decades.

cschwarm 7y ago
Burying biochar (the superset of charcoal, basically) in old coal mines or other geological structures is a feasible way for long-term storage. The carbon content can be up to 90%, depending on the method. Biochar can be made from nearly all forms of biomass as long as it's dry enought.
- antisemiotic 7y ago
  Now I wonder how would old coal miners feel if you told them nowadays the coal is supposed to go in the ground.
  - cschwarm 7y ago
    I think, they would be happy to keep their jobs and get paid for several decades to come. Also, the coal companies wouldn't have to write off their investments, since some of their technology could probably be reused.

ralusek 7y ago

What? You want them cut down and used in carbon storing areas, like construction. Trees capture way more carbon while growing, so ideally you cut them down and replant them.

BurningFrog 7y ago

How long do you think this climate crisis will last? If you think it will be over, or at least completely unrecognizable, in 50 years your - in itself valid - concern doesn't matter. If I imagine people 50 or 100 years ago trying to plan to solve our problems in 2019, knowing what they did then, I don't think they could have accomplished much of anything of substance, even with the best intentions and the commitment of huge resources.

gnud 7y ago

If you cover an area with trees that is today not covered with trees, that area will absorb CO2 from the atomsphere. Even if the trees die or are cut down, as long as new ones are allowed to grow, that area will absorb roughly constant amount of CO2. Now, if we can harvest some trees regularly, and use them to replace plastics or fossil fuels, then that's a win for the environment even if those harvested trees end up releasing their CO2 back to the atmosphere, because we didn't introduce any _more_ CO2, we just recycled what we already have.