4 ms·

In general, mature forests are net CO2 neutral as they exist in a balanced carbon cycle. Only when they are initially planted and growing is there a net CO2 se

In general, mature forests are net CO2 neutral as they exist in a balanced carbon cycle. Only when they are initially planted and growing is there a net CO2 sequestration going on. Burning fossil fuels is the problem we need to fix.

snewman 4y ago
We need to do many many many things. Halting the combustion of fossil fuels is absolutely #1 on the list, but it's a long list. That initial sequestration can't make up for ongoing use of fossil fuels, sure, but it still has nonzero value.
jazzyjackson 4y ago
if your only metric is CO2, you miss the forest for the trees ;) the problem with climate change is the wild swings in weather - if you want to stabilize and buffer these swings, you need to maximize biomass. having a mature forest ecosystem acting as a carbon/nitrogen buffer does a lot of good, but in a way that is difficult to measure I think we get tunnel vision on CO2 ppm because it's a metric with a nice clean causative effect (greenhouse), but more energy on earth is not what's actually causing us grief, we've destroyed most of the mature ecosystems and decimated total biomass, and we are surprised that this causes issues with the total ecosystem because we consider atmospheric problems somehow unrelated to all the living things participating in chemical cycles with that atmosphere. we need more buffer wherever we can get it, and I hate to see someone poo-pooing ecosystem restoration in favor of carbon sequestration.
- soco 4y ago
  Carbon sequestration is a technological problem so technology people will absolutely love it - unlike something as mundane and boring as planting trees or breeding frogs.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    personally my favorite is coral propagation, just take some coral and split it into smaller chunks and let those chunks grow up - they are self replicators, what more could a techie want?
KptMarchewa 4y ago
> In general, mature forests are net CO2 neutral as they exist in a balanced carbon cycle. Can we cut down forests and store them deep in former mines?
- clankyclanker 4y ago
  Sure, but it’s even more efficient to leave those coal mines unmined.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    There is already a ton of open pit coal mines. Like here https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6155147,14.3242528,60602m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6155147,14.3242528,60602m/da... I'm not advocating for new mines.
- AvocadoPanic 4y ago
  You could even cut them down and turn them into houses that people could live in.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    We don't need that many houses.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  No, because as soon as a tree is dead it will begin to rot and decompose (there's fungi everywhere in the air that is just waiting for a piece of juicy fresh tree to digest), thereby releasing CO2, methane and other decomposition gases. The only way to sequester CO2 using trees is keeping the trees alive (or blasting them with chemicals to prevent rotting).
  - spenczar5 4y ago
    If you bury the trees reasonably deep, that CO2 takes a very long time to get to the surface (like tens of thousands of years) so it’s good enough for our purposes.

snewman 4y ago

We need to do many many many things. Halting the combustion of fossil fuels is absolutely #1 on the list, but it's a long list. That initial sequestration can't make up for ongoing use of fossil fuels, sure, but it still has nonzero value.

jazzyjackson 4y ago

if your only metric is CO2, you miss the forest for the trees ;) the problem with climate change is the wild swings in weather - if you want to stabilize and buffer these swings, you need to maximize biomass. having a mature forest ecosystem acting as a carbon/nitrogen buffer does a lot of good, but in a way that is difficult to measure I think we get tunnel vision on CO2 ppm because it's a metric with a nice clean causative effect (greenhouse), but more energy on earth is not what's actually causing us grief, we've destroyed most of the mature ecosystems and decimated total biomass, and we are surprised that this causes issues with the total ecosystem because we consider atmospheric problems somehow unrelated to all the living things participating in chemical cycles with that atmosphere. we need more buffer wherever we can get it, and I hate to see someone poo-pooing ecosystem restoration in favor of carbon sequestration.

soco 4y ago
Carbon sequestration is a technological problem so technology people will absolutely love it - unlike something as mundane and boring as planting trees or breeding frogs.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  personally my favorite is coral propagation, just take some coral and split it into smaller chunks and let those chunks grow up - they are self replicators, what more could a techie want?

KptMarchewa 4y ago

> In general, mature forests are net CO2 neutral as they exist in a balanced carbon cycle. Can we cut down forests and store them deep in former mines?

clankyclanker 4y ago
Sure, but it’s even more efficient to leave those coal mines unmined.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  There is already a ton of open pit coal mines. Like here https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6155147,14.3242528,60602m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6155147,14.3242528,60602m/da... I'm not advocating for new mines.
AvocadoPanic 4y ago
You could even cut them down and turn them into houses that people could live in.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  We don't need that many houses.
mschuster91 4y ago
No, because as soon as a tree is dead it will begin to rot and decompose (there's fungi everywhere in the air that is just waiting for a piece of juicy fresh tree to digest), thereby releasing CO2, methane and other decomposition gases. The only way to sequester CO2 using trees is keeping the trees alive (or blasting them with chemicals to prevent rotting).
- spenczar5 4y ago
  If you bury the trees reasonably deep, that CO2 takes a very long time to get to the surface (like tens of thousands of years) so it’s good enough for our purposes.