4 ms·
The shame here is on my country, Canada, for not putting a stop to this as much as the UK. Why are we granting logging licenses to foreign companies that will
by mabbo 4y ago
The shame here is on my country, Canada, for not putting a stop to this as much as the UK.
Why are we granting logging licenses to foreign companies that will simply burn the wood? Because the logging industry is huge money for British Columbia. Because "jobs" and "the economy" and a dozen other reasons that boil down to "we really like the money we get paid for it".
Hey, we didn't harm the climate because we didn't burn the pellets! And the UK didn't harm the climate because they didn't cut down any trees! Everyone wins, and also we get handed a bunch of money.
- wsc981 4y agoIf you buy the CO2 narrative, then cutting trees should be deemed bad, since these trees will not be able anymore to absorb CO2.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoTrees make themselves out of the CO2. A growing tree absorbs CO2, an already grown tree is effectively neutral, and a dead tree releases the carbon when fungus decompose it. If you cut down a tree and turn it into a house that lasts for 200 years, then you've sequestered that carbon for longer than the tree likely would have.
- tialaramex 4y agoNote that this really depends. A quick growing tree wouldn't have lasted 200 years, but there are tree species in which individuals have been around for longer than recorded human history. I don't think any of them occur in the right part of the world, but if they did it'd be easily possible there's a tree which was once pissed on by a mammoth (~4000 years ago), and yet is still alive now. England has some trees that are definitely hundreds and probably a couple of thousands years old. And England isn't exactly the ideal place to be a tree, it's small, heavily populated and the people who live on it cut a lot of trees down either for firewood or to build things. I'd be surprised if Canada lacks 2000 year old trees.