4 ms·
Western forests burn and regrow regularly... so much so that some species of plants rely on or optimize for the fire cycle. Things like having seeds that only o
by xenadu02 4y ago
Western forests burn and regrow regularly... so much so that some species of plants rely on or optimize for the fire cycle. Things like having seeds that only open after a fire, fire-resistant bark, and so on.
Unless we pave over the locations the carbon released by the fires will be re-captured when those areas re-grow. It is nothing like digging up buried carbon and spewing it into the air.
- downrightmike 4y agoIt took 400 million years for fungus to figure out how to digest wood. Those plants are what we are burning at probably 100's of thousands of years per year at this point.
- hedora 4y agoThe article addresses this: > Over the long to very long term, regrowth of vegetation in burned areas could alleviate some of the emissions, but will not occur quickly enough to avert highly dangerous levels of increased pollutions, temperatures, and climate change, the researchers said. Note the use of the word "could". There is much less water in these areas than there was before (due to climate change). It is extremely unlikely these forests will regrow any time soon.
- reducesuffering 4y agoI frequently see people get the temporary vs. permanent emissions conflated. Like the argument that burning fallen wood for heat, that is going to disintegrate anyway, is more environmentally unfriendly than burning natural gas.
- wizofaus 4y agoWho's ever made that argument? It's probably worse for your health (depending on what sort of fireplace you use), and sure, fallen wood can act as a home for various species, but I'd think only a fossil fuel company's PR department could come up with an argument that burning fallen wood is worse for the environment.