4 ms·

> If it displaces growing food crops But does it? Not all food is suitable for growing crops; even less industrial farming crops, which requires tons of (fossi

by tomp 6y ago

> If it displaces growing food crops But does it? Not all food is suitable for growing crops; even less industrial farming crops, which requires tons of (fossil-fueled) fertilizer, so almost no soil is appropriate. But still, I imagine you need certain flatness to even begin thinking about machine farming. Forests on the other hand can grow on all kinds of land, same with free range animals, and presumably doesn't require so much fertilizer. Therefore, why not both?

iguy 6y ago
Yea, as I edited when I remembered, the strong trade-off on land area is biomass fuels like corn alcohol. If you can grow that you can certainly grow animal feed. Some tree-farming is indeed on steep ground, but I couldn't guess what proportion actually. (Big old trees are more likely to be on steep ground, as the ones in the valleys were cut long long ago, but those are much more valuable.)
the8472 6y ago
My understanding is that forest left to mature, i.e. not harvested, stores more carbon than intensely managed ones.
- tomp 6y ago
  Not really, unless the resulting carbon somehow gets stored underground (e.g. trees become coal). Even carbon from soil eventually gets released (by bacteria) or reused (by other plants). Really, the only question is the biomass of trees. 1MT trees left to grow for 100 years == 2MT of trees harvested every 50 years.
  - the8472 6y ago
    You're only looking at the deltas of carbon in/out. I am referring to the absolute amount of carbon stored per area. Older forests -> higher soil carbon and larger trees
macspoofing 6y ago
>But does it? It uses land that otherwise would be used for something else, like food, or natural habitat. Biofuels are a disaster because we are not just dealing with climate change, but environmental collapse. If only there was an power source that was energy-dense, carbon-free with minimal land-use ... If only there was such a thing....

by tomp 6y ago

iguy 6y ago

Yea, as I edited when I remembered, the strong trade-off on land area is biomass fuels like corn alcohol. If you can grow that you can certainly grow animal feed. Some tree-farming is indeed on steep ground, but I couldn't guess what proportion actually. (Big old trees are more likely to be on steep ground, as the ones in the valleys were cut long long ago, but those are much more valuable.)

the8472 6y ago

My understanding is that forest left to mature, i.e. not harvested, stores more carbon than intensely managed ones.

tomp 6y ago
Not really, unless the resulting carbon somehow gets stored underground (e.g. trees become coal). Even carbon from soil eventually gets released (by bacteria) or reused (by other plants). Really, the only question is the biomass of trees. 1MT trees left to grow for 100 years == 2MT of trees harvested every 50 years.
- the8472 6y ago
  You're only looking at the deltas of carbon in/out. I am referring to the absolute amount of carbon stored per area. Older forests -> higher soil carbon and larger trees

macspoofing 6y ago

>But does it? It uses land that otherwise would be used for something else, like food, or natural habitat. Biofuels are a disaster because we are not just dealing with climate change, but environmental collapse. If only there was an power source that was energy-dense, carbon-free with minimal land-use ... If only there was such a thing....