3 ms·

Agreed, but it’s only temporary because the tree will burn at some point releasing carbon dioxide. At least in any coniferous forest in the western half of Nort

Agreed, but it’s only temporary because the tree will burn at some point releasing carbon dioxide. At least in any coniferous forest in the western half of North America. Don’t get me wrong, it’s much better than nothing. I just think they should probably pick locations that aren’t as prone to burning as the colville forests. So the carving stays locked a bit more long term.

gruez 5y ago
>I just think they should probably pick locations that aren’t as prone to burning as the colville forests. Or apply a discount factor. eg. for a simple model: if a forest has n Tons of sequestered carbon when fully grown, but every 40 years it gets burned bare for 4 years, then it's really only sequestering 0.9n tons of carbon over the long run. > So the carving stays locked a bit more long term. I think you got the adjectives flipped. If anything the sequester is long term, but there's cyclical short term release/recapture.