3 ms·

Unfortunately, the people that plant trees have economic incentives to not put it back in the ground. Timber has considerable economic value, as fuel, or contru

Unfortunately, the people that plant trees have economic incentives to not put it back in the ground. Timber has considerable economic value, as fuel, or contruction materials or whatever. It's hard to imagine foresters cutting down valuable trees, and then discarding them in some lake.

dataflow 5y ago
I imagine it would need to be government funded, not for private enterprise. If the order of magnitude of the costs they mention are to be taken at face value ($80M/year), for the entire world, it would be absolutely trivial for the government to fund, so I don't think expect any commercial enterprise would necessarily be forced to align this with its mission.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > For the entire world, it would be absolutely trivial for the government to fund Which government? Is that some hypothesised World Government? The UK Government runs a lot of the forestry in this country. It is run as a commercial timber operation. The Brazilian and Indonesian governments appear to be committed to commercial exploitation of enormous amounts of old-growth rainforest timber. The Polish and Hungarian governments are also committed to logging old-growth. There's no time left for this kind of dreaming.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > Which government? Is that some hypothesised World Government? I meant the US government. But you can insert lots of other governments in there, including the UK like you mentioned. > There's no time left for this kind of dreaming. Nobody's dreaming. I'm just talking about the feasibility, not claiming anything about the likelihood.
ummonk 5y ago
I don't know what kind of construction materials your house is made of, but most wood construction doesn't just vaporize into the atmosphere as CO2 unless it's burnt down, which is considered an undesirable outcome to be prevented.

3 ms·

Unfortunately, the people that plant trees have economic incentives to not put it back in the ground. Timber has considerable economic value, as fuel, or contru

by denton-scratch 5y ago

dataflow 5y ago
I imagine it would need to be government funded, not for private enterprise. If the order of magnitude of the costs they mention are to be taken at face value ($80M/year), for the entire world, it would be absolutely trivial for the government to fund, so I don't think expect any commercial enterprise would necessarily be forced to align this with its mission.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > For the entire world, it would be absolutely trivial for the government to fund Which government? Is that some hypothesised World Government? The UK Government runs a lot of the forestry in this country. It is run as a commercial timber operation. The Brazilian and Indonesian governments appear to be committed to commercial exploitation of enormous amounts of old-growth rainforest timber. The Polish and Hungarian governments are also committed to logging old-growth. There's no time left for this kind of dreaming.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > Which government? Is that some hypothesised World Government? I meant the US government. But you can insert lots of other governments in there, including the UK like you mentioned. > There's no time left for this kind of dreaming. Nobody's dreaming. I'm just talking about the feasibility, not claiming anything about the likelihood.
ummonk 5y ago
I don't know what kind of construction materials your house is made of, but most wood construction doesn't just vaporize into the atmosphere as CO2 unless it's burnt down, which is considered an undesirable outcome to be prevented.