4 ms·

The reason wood is considered neutral is, that most of the wood is used for construction and other stuff. If you burn it and happen to burn fossil fuel as well,

by hn23 6y ago

The reason wood is considered neutral is, that most of the wood is used for construction and other stuff. If you burn it and happen to burn fossil fuel as well, nothing is neutral.

dmurray 6y ago
No, it's considered neutral because you plant more of it to replace the trees you cut down (not because you are trying to save the world, just because you have some land that's suitable for growing a sustainable commercial forest). Over the life cycle of the tree from planting to burning, it's carbon neutral, though the shape of it for any given tree is 20 years of carbon sequestration followed by 20 minutes of carbon release.
- kspacewalk2 6y ago
  The issue with that is two-fold: 1. Not nearly enough trees are being planted to offset the ones being cut down. 2. Neutral on a scale of 30 years doesn't much matter when we have to reduce the degree to which we're accelerating a highly non-linear climate change process right now.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    I'm not sure about in Britain, but in the U.S. we do sustainably farm trees used for timber and have done so for the past 100 years.
    - jschwartzi 6y ago
      What kind of vehicles do you use to move the lumber from the farm to market, how are the pellet factories powered, and what kind of vehicles are used to move the bulk pellets from US to UK ports?
    - belorn 6y ago
      That is the point where someone bring up photos from almost 100 years ago and make comparison photo of today and notice the obvious: there is a lot more trees in the old photos.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Not 100 years ago, maybe in urban areas that got converted to buildings, but overall, forest acreage in the U.S. has been flat for the past 100 years. If you go back to early 1800s, that would have been a time when acreage was about 25% higher: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/Forest...
        belorn 6y ago
        Talking globally, deforestation results in a net decrease in forest biomass and been like that for a very long time. Talking US specific, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... gives peaks and valleys depending on which time frame but a distinct decrease each year since 1963 with exception during the year of 1997. It is not flat.
        chrisco255 6y ago
        Obviously I don't mean perfectly flat, when we're talking an organic, dynamic system. The trend is flat. See page 7 of the document I linked from the USDA. Even the page you link shows: 766,000,000 acres (3,100,000 km2) in 2012 and 721,000,000 acres (2,920,000 km2) around 1920. Note: "The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910"
  - TwoHeadedBeast 6y ago
    But also perfect is the enemy of good. If wood pellets stop us burning coal in the short term while we transition to a carbon-neutral future, then that's surely a good thing.
skybrian 6y ago
Growing a tree removes carbon from the air. That's carbon-negative. Cutting it down and using it in construction is still net-negative for the wood itself. (Though probably not when you take other energy usage into account.) In the very long run, the building might be torn down and the wood might rot or burn bringing things back to zero again. Growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning the wood is carbon-neutral. But it's very dirty when it comes to other pollutants. A catalytic converter can help.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > Growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning the wood is carbon-neutral It isn’t though. A lot of energy is used planting then maintaining a forest for 30 years, cutting it down, processing it then shipping it. When timber is used in the building industry it’s a bit better but it is still notoriously wasteful. A lot of material goes to site and is binned - offcuts, wastage, over order and material in the wrong place.
- UI_at_80x24 6y ago
  You are right about it being carbon neutral but only from a small frame of reference. How is the wood cut? How is the wood transported? How is the wood processed? Every one of these steps add carbon to the cycle. Some steps are minimal, others are huge; it all depends on scope. I've heat my home with a wood-burning stove for 20-odd years. I have my own acreage and friends/family/farmers all contribute. Cutting down a tree, bringing it home, chopping it size so it fits in the stove are VERY energy intensive operations.

by hn23 6y ago

The reason wood is considered neutral is, that most of the wood is used for construction and other stuff. If you burn it and happen to burn fossil fuel as well, nothing is neutral.

dmurray 6y ago

No, it's considered neutral because you plant more of it to replace the trees you cut down (not because you are trying to save the world, just because you have some land that's suitable for growing a sustainable commercial forest). Over the life cycle of the tree from planting to burning, it's carbon neutral, though the shape of it for any given tree is 20 years of carbon sequestration followed by 20 minutes of carbon release.

kspacewalk2 6y ago
The issue with that is two-fold: 1. Not nearly enough trees are being planted to offset the ones being cut down. 2. Neutral on a scale of 30 years doesn't much matter when we have to reduce the degree to which we're accelerating a highly non-linear climate change process right now.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  I'm not sure about in Britain, but in the U.S. we do sustainably farm trees used for timber and have done so for the past 100 years.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    What kind of vehicles do you use to move the lumber from the farm to market, how are the pellet factories powered, and what kind of vehicles are used to move the bulk pellets from US to UK ports?
  - belorn 6y ago
    That is the point where someone bring up photos from almost 100 years ago and make comparison photo of today and notice the obvious: there is a lot more trees in the old photos.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Not 100 years ago, maybe in urban areas that got converted to buildings, but overall, forest acreage in the U.S. has been flat for the past 100 years. If you go back to early 1800s, that would have been a time when acreage was about 25% higher: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/Forest...
      - belorn 6y ago
        Talking globally, deforestation results in a net decrease in forest biomass and been like that for a very long time. Talking US specific, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... gives peaks and valleys depending on which time frame but a distinct decrease each year since 1963 with exception during the year of 1997. It is not flat.
        chrisco255 6y ago
        Obviously I don't mean perfectly flat, when we're talking an organic, dynamic system. The trend is flat. See page 7 of the document I linked from the USDA. Even the page you link shows: 766,000,000 acres (3,100,000 km2) in 2012 and 721,000,000 acres (2,920,000 km2) around 1920. Note: "The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910"
- TwoHeadedBeast 6y ago
  But also perfect is the enemy of good. If wood pellets stop us burning coal in the short term while we transition to a carbon-neutral future, then that's surely a good thing.

skybrian 6y ago

Growing a tree removes carbon from the air. That's carbon-negative. Cutting it down and using it in construction is still net-negative for the wood itself. (Though probably not when you take other energy usage into account.) In the very long run, the building might be torn down and the wood might rot or burn bringing things back to zero again. Growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning the wood is carbon-neutral. But it's very dirty when it comes to other pollutants. A catalytic converter can help.

lostlogin 6y ago
> Growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning the wood is carbon-neutral It isn’t though. A lot of energy is used planting then maintaining a forest for 30 years, cutting it down, processing it then shipping it. When timber is used in the building industry it’s a bit better but it is still notoriously wasteful. A lot of material goes to site and is binned - offcuts, wastage, over order and material in the wrong place.
UI_at_80x24 6y ago
You are right about it being carbon neutral but only from a small frame of reference. How is the wood cut? How is the wood transported? How is the wood processed? Every one of these steps add carbon to the cycle. Some steps are minimal, others are huge; it all depends on scope. I've heat my home with a wood-burning stove for 20-odd years. I have my own acreage and friends/family/farmers all contribute. Cutting down a tree, bringing it home, chopping it size so it fits in the stove are VERY energy intensive operations.