4 ms·

New forests are long-term storage. A single tree will eventually die, decay, and re-emit carbon. However, it will quickly be replaced by new trees that re-abso

New forests are long-term storage. A single tree will eventually die, decay, and re-emit carbon. However, it will quickly be replaced by new trees that re-absorb a similar amount of carbon. Despite some amount of carbon exchange every year from growth and decay, the forest as a whole stores a huge amount of carbon as long as it lasts. Maybe not stable on geological time-scales due to things like disease, disaster, or continental drift; but certainly extremely valuable on the order of millenia.

stephen_g 3y ago
Exactly - people seem to get a little caught up in the ‘carbon offsets are BS’ narrative (which there is a lot of truth to - a lot of credits in these markets are grifters selling sham credits, and offsets in general won’t work long term if we don’t massively reduce things like fossil fuel use). But taking it too far can mean they aren’t able to quite grasp this about how the forest works. So you get weird, wrong takes like “because trees eventually die and decompose, a forest stores zero carbon on a net basis.” But you’re spot on - the new forest will absorb a certain amount of carbon, and then should basically reach a steady state where new growth trees are absorbing a similar amount of carbon as the decomposing trees are releasing (more or less on the short term, but should roughly even out over the medium term). Of course, there are sometimes things like bushfires, but ideally forest regrown in an area where there was a bushfire re-offsets that (but you can’t claim that against other carbon you release, only against the carbon released by the bushfire!)
- hinkley 3y ago
  See also forest succession, where pioneer trees grow and die, intermediate trees grow on the stumps, and apex canopy trees grow on their stumps. That’s a process that’s anywhere from 80-400 years in the making, and each species holds more carbon than the previous. That’s a long time for us to get carbon neutral. One that’s been replaced with clear cutting, which removed the nurse logs the next generation would typically indirectly consume.
- danbruc 3y ago
  All plant biomass is equivalent to 45 years of global carbon dioxide emissions at current levels. You have to plant a lot of trees to make a noticeable dent.
11235813213455 3y ago
new & long-term are 2 opposite terms by long term I mean a 10k year scale for example (civilization scale), not 100 years (human life scale - mid term), or a few years (short-term)
- angry_moose 3y ago
  The North American forests existed for at least 100,000 years, many times longer than recorded history. Is that not long enough for you? If we were to reforest those areas that were cut down ("new" forests), that's an extremely effective long term carbon sink.
  - 11235813213455 3y ago
    Yes that forest existed for many years, produced coal, oil, shale gas, that's the long-term storage If the forest now regrow, it's a short term storage (added with the long-term effect, that will take more time to settle, but it's a continuous process, so it's good to have too)

stephen_g 3y ago

Exactly - people seem to get a little caught up in the ‘carbon offsets are BS’ narrative (which there is a lot of truth to - a lot of credits in these markets are grifters selling sham credits, and offsets in general won’t work long term if we don’t massively reduce things like fossil fuel use). But taking it too far can mean they aren’t able to quite grasp this about how the forest works. So you get weird, wrong takes like “because trees eventually die and decompose, a forest stores zero carbon on a net basis.” But you’re spot on - the new forest will absorb a certain amount of carbon, and then should basically reach a steady state where new growth trees are absorbing a similar amount of carbon as the decomposing trees are releasing (more or less on the short term, but should roughly even out over the medium term). Of course, there are sometimes things like bushfires, but ideally forest regrown in an area where there was a bushfire re-offsets that (but you can’t claim that against other carbon you release, only against the carbon released by the bushfire!)

hinkley 3y ago
See also forest succession, where pioneer trees grow and die, intermediate trees grow on the stumps, and apex canopy trees grow on their stumps. That’s a process that’s anywhere from 80-400 years in the making, and each species holds more carbon than the previous. That’s a long time for us to get carbon neutral. One that’s been replaced with clear cutting, which removed the nurse logs the next generation would typically indirectly consume.
danbruc 3y ago
All plant biomass is equivalent to 45 years of global carbon dioxide emissions at current levels. You have to plant a lot of trees to make a noticeable dent.

11235813213455 3y ago

new & long-term are 2 opposite terms by long term I mean a 10k year scale for example (civilization scale), not 100 years (human life scale - mid term), or a few years (short-term)

angry_moose 3y ago
The North American forests existed for at least 100,000 years, many times longer than recorded history. Is that not long enough for you? If we were to reforest those areas that were cut down ("new" forests), that's an extremely effective long term carbon sink.
- 11235813213455 3y ago
  Yes that forest existed for many years, produced coal, oil, shale gas, that's the long-term storage If the forest now regrow, it's a short term storage (added with the long-term effect, that will take more time to settle, but it's a continuous process, so it's good to have too)