5 ms·
the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain They might want to write that into their book
by kleiba 6y ago
the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain
They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoIts yearly co2 consumption that they are responsible for sustaining. The plants are already consuming co2, this way that will continue to be the case.
- carpdiem 6y agoForests are not perpetual carbon sinks, as trees eventually die and then decompose, releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere. At best, a young and growing forest can be a temporary carbon sink, until it reaches maturity (and steady state). Alternatively, a forest might support continual carbon sinking if and only if the recently dead and/or mature trees were somehow harvested and treated/stored in such a way that their carbon would not decompose and re-enter the rest of the biosphere.
- teekert 6y agoYes. We should build more using Wood and less using Concrete.
- fladrif 6y agoIs that accurate? I can't believe that decomposition releases _all_ of the carbon into the atmosphere. Certainly a good amount of it is sequestered into the ground (e.g. coal). Thus a standing forest is never completely carbon neutral.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoBroadly speKing, it is - coal does not really form on the timelines relevant to human civilisation
- eptcyka 6y agoHow exactly would wood just turn into coal, once it dies and falls down? You need really high pressures to form coal, this just doesn't happen without the residual biomass getting burried in some massive geological event. Dead trees are eaten by mushrooms and insects, which all produce CO2.
- MagnumOpus 6y agoYou are a bit out of date on this, wood isn't really turning into coal anymore these days, since bacteria and fungi have developed the ability to decompose lignin 300Ma ago. The only thing comparable these days is peat bogs that act as carbon sinks (because their plant matter does not decompose due to acidic and anaerobic environment).
- eptcyka 6y agoPeat bogs are flammable and can often catch fire, which in turn releases CO2. On timescales that matter, they are but temporary measures.
- dalbasal 6y agoWe could make oil or coal and put it under the ground.
- Majestic121 6y agoThe plants are not really consuming CO2 in a grown forest, or more accurately they are consuming and releasing CO2 at the same rate. A growing forest does consume CO2 more than it releases, but it does not seem to be the case now
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoYour comment, and the sibling that made similar observations, are correct. But a regulatory system where people are taxed on the net carbon contribution of their holdings is likely to reward them for owning land that is occuppied by plants.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoBut the point still is that net carbon contribution of land occupied by plants is zero.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoI think the point from Ikea’s perspective is that the regulatory regime may consider it to be net positive.
- osobo 6y agoWell, if that move keeps it from being cut (as evidently was the case), I'd prefer this over the unhealthy new forests that are ecologically unsound but are purely for bookkeeping CO2.
- kleiba 6y agoHuh? That move is exactly pure bookkeeping CO2.
- mschuster91 6y ago> but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale. A forest that is left untouched acts as a CO2 sink by photosynthesis and "capturing" the CO2 as bio-mass. A re-forestation of land previously used for agriculture acts as a bigger CO2 sink because the potential for biomass capture is greater there.
- Heliosmaster 6y agoWhat's best is doing the oil extraction in opposite. Grow plants and capture CO2, bury them in a way that prevents decomposition (is that possible?).
- namibj 6y agoYes, you can turn it into charcoal and bury that. Just make sure it doesn't catch fire.
- Heliosmaster 6y agoUnless they plan on cutting the forest down, replanting everything anew and BURYING the chopped wood, they are not really helping. CO2 already in trees doesn't quickly return to the atmosphere if wood is used for long lasting things. Now, IKEA is known to do the opposite... I know it's counter-intuitive, but it's *almost* better for the environment to NOT recycle paper and bury it in landfills. We're essentially reversing the process of extracting oil.