5 ms·

Possibly. Certainly in the US we have regained forest as marginal farmland was allowed to revert to forest or in some cases converted to forest so that now man

by mc32 5y ago

Possibly. Certainly in the US we have regained forest as marginal farmland was allowed to revert to forest or in some cases converted to forest so that now many places that are conservation land wildernesses are forested as opposed to grazing land and farmland. On the other hand, a growing population means more demand for wood products (for building, for furniture, etc) and the alternative, plastics, are quite problematic.

echelon 5y ago
> On the other hand, a growing population means more demand for wood products In the US, increased demand can be met with renewable sources of lumber. This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration. Population growth is also slowing, which may actually pose a more serious problem for labor and innovation. Immigration helps, but it won't be enough. In other areas of the world, the problem is one of economics, as the parent mentioned.
- soperj 5y ago
  >This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration There is no way that pulling timber out of the forest and converting into a product actually sequesters anything. Hauling the wood out of the forest to the mill likely releases more carbon than is sequestered by the tree in its lifetime.
  - putnambr 5y ago
    Your comment doesn't make sense. A tree growing in a tree farm, and being turned into lumber will sequester that carbon until that lumber is burned. I suppose it matters if you're talking about cutting down old growth for lumber, or using old farm land to put a tree farm on.
    - Teknoman117 5y ago
      Their comment is supposing that the energy costs of hauling the tree out of the forest and slicing it into boards / mulch / whatever (given our current logging technology) emits more carbon (from fuel usage and electricity generation) than the tree sequestered during it's lifetime. This probably not true, considering that for many decades steam powered logging equipment burned wood before coal became the dominant fuel source (and thus able to cut down and process a tree with less energy than we got from a single tree), although many mills were powered by flowing water. It's the same notion that "PV panels emit an equivalent of 50g of CO2 per kW/h (assuming a 25 year service life)". Even though the panel doesn't emit anything during operation, mining and manufacturing are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The tree itself sequesters carbon, but the carbon output from using the tree is what is produced burning it + getting it ready to burn.
    - soperj 5y ago
      Have you watched the trucks hauling logged trees down the road? They aren't exactly fuel efficient, then you haul that finished product from the mill to the lumber yard, then to the job site. The average tree sequesters 400kg of carbon in 25 years. The average commuter car will produce that in 2 weeks.
  - poopypoopington 5y ago
    As the economy electrifies and the grid decarbonizes this will improves. Electric trucks, electric chainsaws etc. Mills are already electric I assume.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
Sounds like there will be a sustained demand for wood products in the future. Maybe we can cut down some trees, and plant new ones in their stead, then repeat as necessary as the market demands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm
- Sharlin 5y ago
  Unfortunately tree farms are absolutely disastrous when it comes to biodiversity, and biodiversity loss and climate change are not separate problems but deeply intertwined. You cannot solve one and ignore the other. Regular managed forest is better but not good either.
  - jankeymeulen 5y ago
    How's that? I could see climate change decreasing biodiversity for sure, but how would decreasing biodiversity lead to climate change?
    - otikik 5y ago
      Nature is the only one capturing CO2 at the moment. Biodiversity is what nature does. It starts with soil, then small plants, and gradually you get trees. It's very energy efficient, but it's a very slow process. Industrial monocultives are nothing like that. It's much faster, but it works out of the paths nature has. Usually by emitting CO2 directly, which impacts climate change. For example, the natural process of building the soil of a forest takes decades of tiny plants and animals living and pooping and dying, while artificial lumber forest soil is brought in trucks, and set in a single season, with fertilizer extracted from a mine (more CO2). The pooping and dying part releases some CO2 as well, but it cannot compare. On top of that, cultivation tends to take land from wild forests and jungles. So that doubles the effect. Permaculture is a way to produce food and wood products using methods that mimic what nature does. Give it a look if you are interested in these things.
  - paul_f 5y ago
    A tree farm is clearly better than a barren field. I am afraid you're gonna have to post some backup links to the claims you're making here

by mc32 5y ago

echelon 5y ago

> On the other hand, a growing population means more demand for wood products In the US, increased demand can be met with renewable sources of lumber. This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration. Population growth is also slowing, which may actually pose a more serious problem for labor and innovation. Immigration helps, but it won't be enough. In other areas of the world, the problem is one of economics, as the parent mentioned.

soperj 5y ago
>This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration There is no way that pulling timber out of the forest and converting into a product actually sequesters anything. Hauling the wood out of the forest to the mill likely releases more carbon than is sequestered by the tree in its lifetime.
- putnambr 5y ago
  Your comment doesn't make sense. A tree growing in a tree farm, and being turned into lumber will sequester that carbon until that lumber is burned. I suppose it matters if you're talking about cutting down old growth for lumber, or using old farm land to put a tree farm on.
  - Teknoman117 5y ago
    Their comment is supposing that the energy costs of hauling the tree out of the forest and slicing it into boards / mulch / whatever (given our current logging technology) emits more carbon (from fuel usage and electricity generation) than the tree sequestered during it's lifetime. This probably not true, considering that for many decades steam powered logging equipment burned wood before coal became the dominant fuel source (and thus able to cut down and process a tree with less energy than we got from a single tree), although many mills were powered by flowing water. It's the same notion that "PV panels emit an equivalent of 50g of CO2 per kW/h (assuming a 25 year service life)". Even though the panel doesn't emit anything during operation, mining and manufacturing are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The tree itself sequesters carbon, but the carbon output from using the tree is what is produced burning it + getting it ready to burn.
  - soperj 5y ago
    Have you watched the trucks hauling logged trees down the road? They aren't exactly fuel efficient, then you haul that finished product from the mill to the lumber yard, then to the job site. The average tree sequesters 400kg of carbon in 25 years. The average commuter car will produce that in 2 weeks.
- poopypoopington 5y ago
  As the economy electrifies and the grid decarbonizes this will improves. Electric trucks, electric chainsaws etc. Mills are already electric I assume.

theandrewbailey 5y ago

Sounds like there will be a sustained demand for wood products in the future. Maybe we can cut down some trees, and plant new ones in their stead, then repeat as necessary as the market demands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm

Sharlin 5y ago
Unfortunately tree farms are absolutely disastrous when it comes to biodiversity, and biodiversity loss and climate change are not separate problems but deeply intertwined. You cannot solve one and ignore the other. Regular managed forest is better but not good either.
- jankeymeulen 5y ago
  How's that? I could see climate change decreasing biodiversity for sure, but how would decreasing biodiversity lead to climate change?
  - otikik 5y ago
    Nature is the only one capturing CO2 at the moment. Biodiversity is what nature does. It starts with soil, then small plants, and gradually you get trees. It's very energy efficient, but it's a very slow process. Industrial monocultives are nothing like that. It's much faster, but it works out of the paths nature has. Usually by emitting CO2 directly, which impacts climate change. For example, the natural process of building the soil of a forest takes decades of tiny plants and animals living and pooping and dying, while artificial lumber forest soil is brought in trucks, and set in a single season, with fertilizer extracted from a mine (more CO2). The pooping and dying part releases some CO2 as well, but it cannot compare. On top of that, cultivation tends to take land from wild forests and jungles. So that doubles the effect. Permaculture is a way to produce food and wood products using methods that mimic what nature does. Give it a look if you are interested in these things.
- paul_f 5y ago
  A tree farm is clearly better than a barren field. I am afraid you're gonna have to post some backup links to the claims you're making here