3 ms·
The short(er)-term carbon cycle has a certain amount of carbon in circulation but using fossil sources increases this amount directly (by burning coal, oil, nat
by _Microft 6y ago
The short(er)-term carbon cycle has a certain amount of carbon in circulation but using fossil sources increases this amount directly (by burning coal, oil, natural gas) or indirectly (plastics made from fossil carbon sources that is eventually burned).
Growing trees sequesters carbon and burning wood chips releases it again. This does not change the total amount in circulation and is much less of a problem.
- Reason077 6y agoThe problem is that those wood chips don't just ship themselves across the Atlantic. There is a significant carbon footprint associated with logging, processing, and transporting all that biomass before you even get to burning it. There is also, potentially, an opportunity cost in burning forests that could otherwise be acting as long term carbon stores (either leaving the trees intact, or harvesting their timber for something where the carbon will be stored longer term, such as construction/housing).