4 ms·

> Deforestation It's not that clear-cut: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/ https://www.weforum.org/a

• jacquesm 5y ago
  Number of trees is a bad metric, you need to know the amount of area available for gas exchange, which takes a long time to build up after a clearcut and 'old growth' forest is a complete ecosystem, something which a young planted forest can only aspire to become one day. And that's before we get into the hardwood vs softwood differences in growth speed.
  • lazide 5y ago
    If you’re trying to sequester carbon, fast (new) growth and softwood is the way to go correct?
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      In the short term: yes, but it is rather less dense than hardwood so you'll end up with a lot more acreage. Poplar/Maple/Oak/Pine are all good options, with the slow growers storing the carbon for the longest time, and even when not harvested they won't rot nearly as fast (rot is best looked at as slow burning in this context). And then not to harvest them until they die of 'natural causes', hopefully not a forest fire.
      • lazide 5y ago
        If you're trying to sequester carbon, you need to lock up that carbon somewhere - and cutting it down and putting it somewhere it will stay intact the longest seems like the best bet? A house, or a building for instance. If it is in a forest long term (same trees), sequestration flat lines after awhile no? I'm not saying I don't like trees - far from it, I own 90 acres of timberland! I'm pointing out that pulling carbon from the atmosphere as fast as possible vs a pretty piece of old growth timber are two different goals with different tradeoffs.