27 ms·

And... would be released back in the Atmosphere as soon as the forest burns

Jolter 5y ago
The assumption would be that the newly forested land would be re-planted and re-harvested indefinitely, which would mean that on average we have now bound half of the maximum carbon content of that forest.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  The question is, what happens with the harvested wood? If it eventually gets burned or rots, then you've captured nothing. That means it can't be used for paper or furniture, or even most construction - they all have too short lifespans these days. The optimum would be to bury the harvested forest in a deep, deep hole, where light and water can't get, and seal it there permanently.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    Ah, the technique of The Ancients ...
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    I would recommend burying it in old coal mines after compressing it under intense heat.
  - ihattendorf 5y ago
    Right, the idea is if I currently have empty land nothing is captured. If I then plant a forest that captures X lbs of CO2 that is continuously harvested and re-planted, on average X/2 lbs (roughly) of CO2 is permanently taken out of the air (as long as the forest is being harvested and replanted).
  - Jolter 5y ago
    As ihattendorf pointed out already, the point is not the production or consumption of wood - that’s circular and thus will net 0 even if you burned the wood. The point is that the growing trees will always bind some amount of carbon. Of course, this kind of action only scales in case we have excess land which is suitable for planting, and I suspect that this is the biggest flaw of the scheme.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      I get that, but I think what you and 'ihattendorf are forgetting that we're not dealing with a fixed amount of carbon dioxide surplus - we're continuously emitting it (and the rate is ever growing). Imagine you have a bathtub with a closed drain and an open faucet. It starts to fill with water. This proposal is an equivalent of putting a bucket in that bathtub, filling it with water, and then putting that bucket on the floor. Yes, it took some water out. No, it doesn't matter, because the faucet is still open and more water keeps flowing. The solutions that matter are ones that involve reducing emissions - at the very least, making them grow linearly instead of exponentially - and those that continuously remove carbon from the air. With forests, that means continuously growing them, cutting them down, and burying the wood where it can't decompose.
      - Jolter 5y ago
        Oh, I get that. I wrote as much — this scheme needs to expand the planted land indefinitely which is infeasible. And you’re right that it would be more effective to multiply that effect by using the wood in long-life applications like house construction. All in all, it’s a crappy idea that only serves to greenwash businesses rather than make actual reductions of emissions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

The assumption would be that the newly forested land would be re-planted and re-harvested indefinitely, which would mean that on average we have now bound half of the maximum carbon content of that forest.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
The question is, what happens with the harvested wood? If it eventually gets burned or rots, then you've captured nothing. That means it can't be used for paper or furniture, or even most construction - they all have too short lifespans these days. The optimum would be to bury the harvested forest in a deep, deep hole, where light and water can't get, and seal it there permanently.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  Ah, the technique of The Ancients ...
- blendergeek 5y ago
  I would recommend burying it in old coal mines after compressing it under intense heat.
- ihattendorf 5y ago
  Right, the idea is if I currently have empty land nothing is captured. If I then plant a forest that captures X lbs of CO2 that is continuously harvested and re-planted, on average X/2 lbs (roughly) of CO2 is permanently taken out of the air (as long as the forest is being harvested and replanted).
- Jolter 5y ago
  As ihattendorf pointed out already, the point is not the production or consumption of wood - that’s circular and thus will net 0 even if you burned the wood. The point is that the growing trees will always bind some amount of carbon. Of course, this kind of action only scales in case we have excess land which is suitable for planting, and I suspect that this is the biggest flaw of the scheme.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    I get that, but I think what you and 'ihattendorf are forgetting that we're not dealing with a fixed amount of carbon dioxide surplus - we're continuously emitting it (and the rate is ever growing). Imagine you have a bathtub with a closed drain and an open faucet. It starts to fill with water. This proposal is an equivalent of putting a bucket in that bathtub, filling it with water, and then putting that bucket on the floor. Yes, it took some water out. No, it doesn't matter, because the faucet is still open and more water keeps flowing. The solutions that matter are ones that involve reducing emissions - at the very least, making them grow linearly instead of exponentially - and those that continuously remove carbon from the air. With forests, that means continuously growing them, cutting them down, and burying the wood where it can't decompose.
    - Jolter 5y ago
      Oh, I get that. I wrote as much — this scheme needs to expand the planted land indefinitely which is infeasible. And you’re right that it would be more effective to multiply that effect by using the wood in long-life applications like house construction. All in all, it’s a crappy idea that only serves to greenwash businesses rather than make actual reductions of emissions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]