3 ms·

> Those forests are extremely important because they’re not only the most effective carbon capture method on the planet—the old-growth forest captures carbon at

> Those forests are extremely important because they’re not only the most effective carbon capture method on the planet—the old-growth forest captures carbon at this incredible rate that’s not seen in logged and replanted forest I'm wondering where they are getting this from. Most sources I can find say the exact opposite.

claudiulodro 5y ago
All the non-tree plants that get destroyed during the logging process I assume. Bushes, shrubs, ferns, grasses, ivies, etc. all get really destroyed during the logging process and will only return after a number of years when the ecosystem becomes favorable and seeds have re-propagated to the area.
technobabbler 5y ago
I think this is a topic of continuing research. Probably the New Republic doesn't dive too deep into climate research? One original article from 2008 made the case that they suck up a lot of CO2: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276 (or https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1038/nature07276 https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1038/nature07276) But this finding was challenged in 2021: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325150055.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325150055.h... (or https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03266-z https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/https://www.nature.com/articles/s...) Edit: Dunno if climate is really the best argument there anyway. The old-growths have high biodiversity value, and are hard to regrow. Carbon is more or less a fungible commodity that can be sunk in a billion other ways.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Well it can be sunk in some other ways but those trees were already doing it before they got logged. The most efficient way of CO2 sink is the one that's already there because it takes no resources to keep it.
  - technobabbler 5y ago
    Most of that carbon is in the wood, and is still sequestered in houses even if you log it and turn it into furniture. If you burn it for fuel though, it's back in the atmosphere. Please note that I am NOT advocating that we log old-growth forests, just that the carbon math isn't simple or, well, clear-cut.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      It's in the wood yes but once you log the tree it stops capturing more carbon.
      - technobabbler 5y ago
        Yes, but when you plant new trees they capture more carbon. More or less than the old growth would've? I'm not sure off the top of my head. Do you know? I'm guessing it probably varies by species and soil and climate and such. It's not a given that old growth will keep sequestering more than replanted forest. Old growth, according to that followup study, eventually reaches a carbon equilibrium. They don't grow to infinity and keep sucking up carbon. If you take those trees and move them into furniture you've essentially freed up soil and canopy (light) for more wood to grow. If they just replace the old growth with rangeland or development, then yes, it's much worse.

claudiulodro 5y ago

All the non-tree plants that get destroyed during the logging process I assume. Bushes, shrubs, ferns, grasses, ivies, etc. all get really destroyed during the logging process and will only return after a number of years when the ecosystem becomes favorable and seeds have re-propagated to the area.

technobabbler 5y ago

I think this is a topic of continuing research. Probably the New Republic doesn't dive too deep into climate research? One original article from 2008 made the case that they suck up a lot of CO2: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276 (or https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1038/nature07276 https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1038/nature07276) But this finding was challenged in 2021: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325150055.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325150055.h... (or https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03266-z https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/https://www.nature.com/articles/s...) Edit: Dunno if climate is really the best argument there anyway. The old-growths have high biodiversity value, and are hard to regrow. Carbon is more or less a fungible commodity that can be sunk in a billion other ways.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
Well it can be sunk in some other ways but those trees were already doing it before they got logged. The most efficient way of CO2 sink is the one that's already there because it takes no resources to keep it.
- technobabbler 5y ago
  Most of that carbon is in the wood, and is still sequestered in houses even if you log it and turn it into furniture. If you burn it for fuel though, it's back in the atmosphere. Please note that I am NOT advocating that we log old-growth forests, just that the carbon math isn't simple or, well, clear-cut.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    It's in the wood yes but once you log the tree it stops capturing more carbon.
    - technobabbler 5y ago
      Yes, but when you plant new trees they capture more carbon. More or less than the old growth would've? I'm not sure off the top of my head. Do you know? I'm guessing it probably varies by species and soil and climate and such. It's not a given that old growth will keep sequestering more than replanted forest. Old growth, according to that followup study, eventually reaches a carbon equilibrium. They don't grow to infinity and keep sucking up carbon. If you take those trees and move them into furniture you've essentially freed up soil and canopy (light) for more wood to grow. If they just replace the old growth with rangeland or development, then yes, it's much worse.