4 ms·
The tree is no longer alive to photosynthesize co2.
by tofuahdude 5y ago
The tree is no longer alive to photosynthesize co2.
- c06n 5y agoIt only takes up Co2 in its growth phase, not afterwards.
- aidenn0 5y agoThat seems intuitively true, but apparently it's still debated whether old- or new-growth forests are more carbon-negative.
- socialdemocrat 5y agoIt is really only a debate about when exactly trees stop growing and consuming CO2. Given enough time, sooner or later the tree isn’t consuming CO2. At that point there is no point in leaving the tree standing. Cut it down and let a new tree grow there.
- TeMPOraL 5y agoYes, but a tree that isn't growing isn't trapping much carbon dioxide either.
- citrin_ru 5y agoA tree cannot live forever. Once it is dead all (or almost all) accumulated carbon slowly released back into atmosphere as CO₂ by bacteria. So cutting trees and preserving them from decay is a carbon negative process in a long run.
- abfan1127 5y agohow is it carbon negative? wouldn't it be neutral? unless the trees were sent underground to prevent release into the atmosphere? or became petrified?
- goodpoint 5y agoCorrect: to make a change we would have to bury millions of tons of valuable wood deep enough that the co2 stays trapped. In short, it would be the opposite of extracting and burning oil.
- socialdemocrat 5y agoIf I keep cutting down and re-growing trees on the same plot of land over and over again I will reduce the total CO2 in the atmosphere as long as the cut down trees are not burned or rot. You can avoid that by building houses for instance. Or boats.
- citrin_ru 5y agoThat what I meant in my comment, but over long enough time frame it will be a carbon neutral process: a building will eventually fail into disrepair and will rot or will be destroyed by a fire. A ship will likely last even less. Anyway I see no reasons to avoid using wood if it is harvested responsibly.