3 ms·
I am pretty sure the OP is talking about storing carbon into the material itself, not producing it as an output and capturing it; hence the comparison to wood,
by bobthepanda 3y ago
I am pretty sure the OP is talking about storing carbon into the material itself, not producing it as an output and capturing it; hence the comparison to wood, which is carbon negative
- gumby 3y agoTrees aren't really carbon negative, but carbon neutral over an extended lifespan. They die and turn back into atmospheric CO2 (perhaps becoming even worse methane along the way) while their leaves continually do this over a short period. But the trees usually do this over a timescale of 20-220 years (less when there are fires or climactic change), so are much better than nothing. But they don't count as "permanent".
- bobthepanda 3y agoThey release their carbon when they decompose, but that's not really relevant if the wood is furniture or building materials.
- gumby 3y agoA tiny percentage of trees by volume. And a lot of that ends up in landfills either right away or after a few decades, where it starts to release GHGs.