3 ms·

> This would result in more land being forested Why? This is an additional variable. You can add additional area in both cases. Why would burning coal add some

> This would result in more land being forested Why? This is an additional variable. You can add additional area in both cases. Why would burning coal add some land that you can plant new forests, and burning wood not?

pjc50 5y ago
Bear in mind that in Europe "plant new forest" means "change land use from agriculture" or "change non-forest ecosystem such as moorland to forest". There's isn't a lot of land that's just spare.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  I know, that's why I disagree with premise that we can burn coal and magically find new land for forests.
i_am_proteus 5y ago
It's a hypothetical to make the comparison apples-to-apples. But also: for biomass to be carbon neutral compared to some baseline, there would need to be no net change in living biomass. While there's a net negative in living biomass, the cycle is not carbon neutral. The time scales are long enough that it makes a difference. In extremis, coal is not considered renewable or carbon-neutral even though, in s very technically-correct-is-the-worst-kind-of-correct sense, it is.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  > It's a hypothetical to make the comparison apples-to-apples. It's not apples to apples when you magically find some new land that does not exist in the other scenario.Biomass is not carbon neutral very short term, but coal never is. There are some species that grow very fast - replenishment is not a very long term perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_rotation_coppice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_rotation_coppice
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > Biomass is not carbon neutral very short term (...) Well, mankind has been outputting industrial emissions for the last, say, two centuries. It's very safe to assume that most managed forests around have been capturing anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the last century or so.
  - agent327 5y ago
    I take offense at that. Yes, you might be achieving the holy grail of storing carbon, but a collection of identical, equidistant trees with barely any other form of life between them is not a forest, it's a soul-crushing horror show.
    - uuidgen 5y ago
      Compare that to a strip mine and it is way smaller horror. It can create place to live for animals, it can reduce particulates in the air. It's not a normal long-living forest that is grown for wood for 80-100+ years but it's still way better than burning coal.
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      It's not a forest. It's a field, the same as wheat or corn, just that the product is different.

pjc50 5y ago

Bear in mind that in Europe "plant new forest" means "change land use from agriculture" or "change non-forest ecosystem such as moorland to forest". There's isn't a lot of land that's just spare.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
I know, that's why I disagree with premise that we can burn coal and magically find new land for forests.

i_am_proteus 5y ago

It's a hypothetical to make the comparison apples-to-apples. But also: for biomass to be carbon neutral compared to some baseline, there would need to be no net change in living biomass. While there's a net negative in living biomass, the cycle is not carbon neutral. The time scales are long enough that it makes a difference. In extremis, coal is not considered renewable or carbon-neutral even though, in s very technically-correct-is-the-worst-kind-of-correct sense, it is.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
> It's a hypothetical to make the comparison apples-to-apples. It's not apples to apples when you magically find some new land that does not exist in the other scenario.Biomass is not carbon neutral very short term, but coal never is. There are some species that grow very fast - replenishment is not a very long term perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_rotation_coppice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_rotation_coppice
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Biomass is not carbon neutral very short term (...) Well, mankind has been outputting industrial emissions for the last, say, two centuries. It's very safe to assume that most managed forests around have been capturing anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the last century or so.
- agent327 5y ago
  I take offense at that. Yes, you might be achieving the holy grail of storing carbon, but a collection of identical, equidistant trees with barely any other form of life between them is not a forest, it's a soul-crushing horror show.
  - uuidgen 5y ago
    Compare that to a strip mine and it is way smaller horror. It can create place to live for animals, it can reduce particulates in the air. It's not a normal long-living forest that is grown for wood for 80-100+ years but it's still way better than burning coal.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    It's not a forest. It's a field, the same as wheat or corn, just that the product is different.