3 ms·
Mature forests are at best net carbon neutral, and at worst net carbon emitters. Comparing our current emissions with amount sequestered per hectare of forest i
by xyzzyz 7y ago
Mature forests are at best net carbon neutral, and at worst net carbon emitters. Comparing our current emissions with amount sequestered per hectare of forest immediately gives that we don’t have nearly enough suitable unused land to plant new forests to make up for our current emissions. The only viable way to use forests to sequester carbon is to cut down immense numbers of trees and bury them underground. I don’t see anyone going to seriously propose this.
- jonnycomputer 7y agoActually, I wonder if that is true. https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2008/sep/old-growth-forests-are-valuable-carbon-sinks https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2008/sep/old-growth-f... I'm sure tree-farmers would sale their trees to governments interested in sequestering carbon. Probably could just dump them in the oceanic trenches...
- xyzzyz 7y agoClearly, if government is going to buy the lumber at market prices, the owners of the forests won’t complain or ask the purpose. However, the rest of us who would pay for the scheme would see the idea of burying the trees in order to offset the carbon we keep digging up as quite ridiculous.
- jonnycomputer 7y agoIf there were no alternatives to fossil fuels it wouldn't be ridiculous. Its just an offset (though, honestly, I suspect not an optimal one--carbon is not the only environmental concern we have, and mono-cultured tree farms are probably not a solution to those.. But we do have alternatives. In fact, I think that fossil fuels are preciously energy dense, that they should be kept in reserve for when truly needed. Let renewables be the solution for every-day needs.