3 ms·

> Most of that timber turns back into CO2 in 100 years or so. Tree-planting is not a long-term solution to excess atmospheric carbon. Do you have links to more

> Most of that timber turns back into CO2 in 100 years or so. Tree-planting is not a long-term solution to excess atmospheric carbon. Do you have links to more reading on that? This is the first time I've heard of this particular reason why it might not work.

ohgodplsno 5y ago
Wooden things rarely last more than 50 years and end up being thrown in fire, or catching fire as a result of natural events. Additionally, decaying wood releases CO2.
- kiliantics 5y ago
  It depends on how you use that wood. In old cities around the world, there are plentiful examples of wooden structures that have been around for up to 1000 years or more.
  - ohgodplsno 5y ago
    Does our current world really look like we're building thousand year long buildings ?
    - kiliantics 5y ago
      Well I believe we should be moving in that direction if we want to have any chance of sustaining society. Just like we need to kill fast fashion, we should kill "fast construction" too.
denton-scratch 5y ago
No I don't. But if wood lasted more than a couple of hundred years on average, then we would be neck-deep in old lumber. We're constantly cutting down trees, and yet the amount of wood in the lived environment isn't increasing noticeably. Conclusion: all that old wood is either buried, or it's busy turning into CO2. So I'm not impressed by claims of "carbon offsetting". On the contrary, I take such claims as evidence that the organisation in question is part of the problem. Incidentally, how are you supposed to recycle chipboard? Like, for example a chipboard kitchen counter? For several decades, I had in my home a pair of oak side tables, that were made by my grandfather from the remains of a large oak dining table. You can't do that nowadays with chipboard.
- dataflow 5y ago
  I can't say I follow your logic at all unfortunately. But regardless, I also don't get where you see a discussion of "carbon offsetting". This isn't about "offsetting" emissions or impressing you, this is about repaying "debt" that's already incurred. Pulling down old carbon is something we have to do regardless of what we do with our current emissions, even if we drive them to 0, because the current carbon in the atmosphere is already too much. Whether we do it with trees or machines or something else, it needs to happen.

ohgodplsno 5y ago

Wooden things rarely last more than 50 years and end up being thrown in fire, or catching fire as a result of natural events. Additionally, decaying wood releases CO2.

kiliantics 5y ago
It depends on how you use that wood. In old cities around the world, there are plentiful examples of wooden structures that have been around for up to 1000 years or more.
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  Does our current world really look like we're building thousand year long buildings ?
  - kiliantics 5y ago
    Well I believe we should be moving in that direction if we want to have any chance of sustaining society. Just like we need to kill fast fashion, we should kill "fast construction" too.

denton-scratch 5y ago

No I don't. But if wood lasted more than a couple of hundred years on average, then we would be neck-deep in old lumber. We're constantly cutting down trees, and yet the amount of wood in the lived environment isn't increasing noticeably. Conclusion: all that old wood is either buried, or it's busy turning into CO2. So I'm not impressed by claims of "carbon offsetting". On the contrary, I take such claims as evidence that the organisation in question is part of the problem. Incidentally, how are you supposed to recycle chipboard? Like, for example a chipboard kitchen counter? For several decades, I had in my home a pair of oak side tables, that were made by my grandfather from the remains of a large oak dining table. You can't do that nowadays with chipboard.

dataflow 5y ago
I can't say I follow your logic at all unfortunately. But regardless, I also don't get where you see a discussion of "carbon offsetting". This isn't about "offsetting" emissions or impressing you, this is about repaying "debt" that's already incurred. Pulling down old carbon is something we have to do regardless of what we do with our current emissions, even if we drive them to 0, because the current carbon in the atmosphere is already too much. Whether we do it with trees or machines or something else, it needs to happen.