5 ms·

The CO2 emitted is not a concern because it's carbon from the current environment. Just like it's fair to call wood-fire heating carbon-neutral (even though it'

The CO2 emitted is not a concern because it's carbon from the current environment. Just like it's fair to call wood-fire heating carbon-neutral (even though it's not so great from a particulate standpoint)

Denvercoder9 5y ago
> Just like it's fair to call wood-fire heating carbon-neutral (even though it's not so great from a particulate standpoint). As long as you grow these trees specifically for burning. Once you start chopping down forests without replacing them, you're still adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > As long as you grow these trees specifically for burning. I don't think anyone's chopping down ancient forests in the West anymore.
  - _whiteCaps_ 5y ago
    https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/fairy-creek-blockade/ https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/fairy-creek-blockade/ It's still happening in Canada. :(
  - slapfrog 5y ago
    For the most part, you're right. Monoculture tree farms with straight rows of fast growing pine trees as far as the eye can see are now the norm, for better or worse.
moralestapia 5y ago
>The CO2 emitted is not a concern because it's carbon from the current environment. Nope, it doesn't work like that. Source: Business very related to this exact activity.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  In what way? Regulations that don't consider the source?
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    Because the CO2 goes back to the atmosphere.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Didn't the CO2 that went into the tree come from the atmosphere in the first place?
      - moralestapia 5y ago
        Yes, and life and ecological systems adapted around particular levels of it. Man put too much back in recent years (see [1]) so we'd like to take it off there because the vast majority of current research points to it being a bad thing for the weather dynamics of the planet. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        But if it came from the atmosphere, and goes back into the atmosphere… why isn’t it carbon net zero? Out -1, in +1, net 0. Wasted energy to harvest trees? But you also waste energy extracting fossil fuels, and offsetting carbon.
        moralestapia 5y ago
        It is always net zero if you're pedantic and say the earth is a closed system plus conservation of matter. But the whole premise (i.e. the concern) is that there's too much CO2 as an atmospheric gas and it would be better if some of it were instead somewhere else. If you take from the atmosphere but then put it back it doesn't really help alleviate the problem.

Denvercoder9 5y ago

> Just like it's fair to call wood-fire heating carbon-neutral (even though it's not so great from a particulate standpoint). As long as you grow these trees specifically for burning. Once you start chopping down forests without replacing them, you're still adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> As long as you grow these trees specifically for burning. I don't think anyone's chopping down ancient forests in the West anymore.
- _whiteCaps_ 5y ago
  https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/fairy-creek-blockade/ https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/fairy-creek-blockade/ It's still happening in Canada. :(
- slapfrog 5y ago
  For the most part, you're right. Monoculture tree farms with straight rows of fast growing pine trees as far as the eye can see are now the norm, for better or worse.

moralestapia 5y ago

>The CO2 emitted is not a concern because it's carbon from the current environment. Nope, it doesn't work like that. Source: Business very related to this exact activity.

readflaggedcomm 5y ago
In what way? Regulations that don't consider the source?
- moralestapia 5y ago
  Because the CO2 goes back to the atmosphere.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Didn't the CO2 that went into the tree come from the atmosphere in the first place?
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      Yes, and life and ecological systems adapted around particular levels of it. Man put too much back in recent years (see [1]) so we'd like to take it off there because the vast majority of current research points to it being a bad thing for the weather dynamics of the planet. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        But if it came from the atmosphere, and goes back into the atmosphere… why isn’t it carbon net zero? Out -1, in +1, net 0. Wasted energy to harvest trees? But you also waste energy extracting fossil fuels, and offsetting carbon.
        moralestapia 5y ago
        It is always net zero if you're pedantic and say the earth is a closed system plus conservation of matter. But the whole premise (i.e. the concern) is that there's too much CO2 as an atmospheric gas and it would be better if some of it were instead somewhere else. If you take from the atmosphere but then put it back it doesn't really help alleviate the problem.