4 ms·

I agree with your general comment, but since forests can be used for construction materials they come out a little better than merely being a buffer since the w

I agree with your general comment, but since forests can be used for construction materials they come out a little better than merely being a buffer since the wood gets used in housing or manufacturing in places where steel or concrete would need to step in, both of which are much worse for the environment. If built with longevity in mind, wood framed houses can last around five hundred years, which is more than enough time for technological advancement to allow us to deal with excess carbon by then. Even if they're only designed as typical buildings are, it's still a good fifty years of buffer as wood in a house in addition to the buffer as they were growing as trees. Forests are a real part of the solution.

scottlocklin 6y ago
I don't know how people are eliding "forests" from my statement about soil. Soil is important and poorly understood[0], which is ironic because it's where most carbon capture is happening now. Forests are nice, and everyone likes forests, but soil is pushing the needle in ways that a shitload of 500 year old houses ain't gonna[1]. [0]https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/11/13/where-is-all-that-carbon-dioxide-is-going/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/11/13/where-is-all-that-c... [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/46/11652 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/46/11652
- looseLief 6y ago
  To be fair, you can never discuss forests in any sort of scientific manner without discussing soils. The two are fundamentally linked. That said, regenerative agriculture is probably the single best carbon sequestration technology that we have given the raw amount of land we have depleted of its organic matter.
DanBC 6y ago
> Forests are a real part of the solution. Yes, absolutely. I should have been more clear. It's really important that we plant trees, and that we pay attention to the type of tree we're planting and where we plant them.

scottlocklin 6y ago

I don't know how people are eliding "forests" from my statement about soil. Soil is important and poorly understood[0], which is ironic because it's where most carbon capture is happening now. Forests are nice, and everyone likes forests, but soil is pushing the needle in ways that a shitload of 500 year old houses ain't gonna[1]. [0]https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/11/13/where-is-all-that-carbon-dioxide-is-going/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/11/13/where-is-all-that-c... [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/46/11652 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/46/11652

looseLief 6y ago
To be fair, you can never discuss forests in any sort of scientific manner without discussing soils. The two are fundamentally linked. That said, regenerative agriculture is probably the single best carbon sequestration technology that we have given the raw amount of land we have depleted of its organic matter.

DanBC 6y ago

> Forests are a real part of the solution. Yes, absolutely. I should have been more clear. It's really important that we plant trees, and that we pay attention to the type of tree we're planting and where we plant them.