4 ms·

One of my professors once told me that we have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the best thing we could do to the planet was to cut down trees, bury the

by blagie 3y ago

One of my professors once told me that we have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the best thing we could do to the planet was to cut down trees, bury them, plant more trees, cut those down, and bury those. If they become decks, paper, or other useful products in between, reducing usage of plastics things which emit carbon, so much the better. Convince me otherwise.

KorematsuFredt 3y ago
Your prof was correct. We need to cut down existing large trees, put them into long term use where they can be used for 100+ years and plant new trees in their place. It is the simplest and very natural way to capture carbon. Fully grown trees are mostly carbon neutral, growing trees on other hand are capturing carbon. Perhaps we can cut down large trees, coat them with very durable recycled plastic and simply store them on coastal line. Canada and USA can heavily subsidize logging industry where 1. They have 100 year plan to plant and cut trees. 2. Wood gets exported to poorer countries where deforestation is a problem.
asimpletune 3y ago
Probably, but let’s leave the super nice movie trees
sirtaj 3y ago
Your prof is not wrong in theory, but in practice we are failing at 3. plant more trees.
- hnbad 3y ago
  The new growth also needs to account for the emissions of cutting down and processing the old trees (even with solar, machines don't run on sunshine alone) and planting/nurturing the new growth itself. The prof was likely just trying to be provocative, not speaking based on thorough modelling.
  - huuhee3 3y ago
    Using concrete for building also causes massive emissions. Generally speaking, making long lasting buildings from wood is ecological compared to alternatives. Of course doing the harvesting in a sustainable way and replanting are necessary for this to be true. IMO old growth forests should be protected, but at the same time we should plant new industrial forests as much as possible, and harvest them for building material. Old agricultural land that is no longer used for farming is ideal for that.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      I'm not saying using wood instead of concrete is bad. I'm just saying "build more houses and use wood" doesn't reduce emissions, it produces them. "Build more houses and don't use wood" of course produces more. But the distinguishing factor here is "use wood" not "build more houses". Likewise planting trees to be used for industry instead of materials with worse emissions is good and planting forests is good but the two are largely unrelated as the kind of forest you want for restoration projects is different from the kind you can use for logging. It's a bit like how there were news headlines about bees becoming endangered followed by tons of startups selling honey bees for greenwashing when honey bees are specifically the one species of bees that is nowhere near endangered because they are used at industrial scales. We need to protect old growth forests but also expand them, because they're vital habitats that help protect biodiversity and maintain plant matter for sustainable carbon capture. We also need industrial wood plantations to produce wood we can use instead of more harmful building materials. We also need to reduce the overall need for building materials, e.g. by investing in long-term sustainable housing projects rather than McMansions with a lifespan of less than one generation.
    - blagie 3y ago
      One of the nice things about concrete -- if done right -- is that it produces emissions only once. We have Roman concrete structures which were still standing 1500 years later (and went down due to war, rather than wear).
elihu 3y ago
The problem is if they become used in disposable or short-lifetime materials, most of that carbon will go right back to being CO2 once the thing is thrown away and it decomposes. Ideally all that stuff would be sent to a facility where it can be properly sequestered long term, but most of it probably won't.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  I like to give an analogy where plants are like using sponges to control the rising water in a bathtub that has a clogged drain. Sure, you can soak up some water temporarily, but eventually the water comes back out.
- blagie 3y ago
  How much of it decomposes into the atmosphere? How much stays down? That's a serious question. I have no clear sense of what happens in landfills. For all I know, they might be the new fossil fuel reserves in the year 30,000.
sdenton4 3y ago
Forests do a lot more than hold carbon. And many of these other uses require more than young, fast growing monocultures. Quite a lot of rainfall over land originates as transpiration from forests, for example; they're a key part of the water cycle, holding and releasing water which would otherwise just run into the sea. Likewise, a lot of species depend on healthy first habitat. Clear cut all the trees, and you lose all the species that depends on them. And all the species in adjacent ecosystems which rely on the forests. This isn't to say that tree planting and harvesting can't be a part of carbon management strategies, but that it must be done judiciously. Clear cutting everything and burying it all is as short-sighted as, say, spending a century dumping leaded CO2 fumes into the atmosphere.
skeeter2020 3y ago
>> Convince me otherwise. Who's going to pay you to cut down trees and bury them? Especially since they are considered an incredibly valuable asset by everyone (for very different reasons), from the environmentalist to the unrepentant capitalist.
gdubs 3y ago
Biochar is a lot like this. It's believed to have created the incredible soils of the Amazon basin. Basically, wood gets burned to charcoal rather than ash, and the carbon is then buried – creating rich organic soil. One thing worth mentioning though is that people often forget that the trees themselves are not the only aspect of CO2 when it comes to forestry. So-called "natural forests" are apparently much more effective at sequestering carbon, due to the dense web of life contained within them – much more so than the monoculture forests that tend to get planted these days.
asdff 3y ago
How often do you bury your old deck deep enough to not have decomposition emit gasses to the surface when you replace it though?
pvaldes 3y ago
What matter imparted that professor? > Convince me otherwise Why?
- blagie 3y ago
  Because we come here to learn, debate, and argue. That sometimes leads to solutions, improvements, or startups, and if nothing else, better civic society and better personal choices.
seadan83 3y ago
The studies that say newly growing forests absorb carbon at a faster rate are suspect (logging industry funded). For starters, I wouldn't believe the logging industry propaganda. First, let's consider tree farms, modern mono-cultures. Please look at google maps at anywhere in the northwest, and you'll see it looks like checkerboards. This is not satellite imagery being stitched together, that is what it looks like. So much forest have been cut and regrown several times over. These tree farms - they're dense, bio-engineer to have small branches that are shed early. The trees grow like an overgrown bush, the canopy is almost exclusively at the top 10% layer. The effective area for photosynthesis is that of a field covered in a thick layer of bushes. Compare that to a field of conifers that have far more photosynthesis area on them overall, it extends from the top of the tree to the even the bottom half, in addition to the tree being taller. In a natural forest trees will fall and create gaps, allowing for more use of the vertical space. A natural forest is effectively a series of vertical gardens. Next, let's consider tree rings. I don't buy the idea that a few saplings are going to do anywhere near the same activity as a 200 foot redwood. The amount of carbon in a tree ring for a 1000 foot tree is likely astounding. A new layer of bark on something that has a 10-40 foot diameter. (Red woods are amazing trees) Next, it takes a good 30 years for that regrowth cycle to happen. What's more, humans have been doing that round-the-clock in North America since Europeans arrived. The "2nd" growth is like the 6th to 10th time we have been through this. The forests that have been managed like this are not great (they have low recreational value, they burn like crazy, they clearly don't have the same mass of green material that would be doing photosynthesis (so I don't buy that the carbon sink activity is lower), they are crap habitat for animals). More so, the wood from these forests is poor, it's soft, warps easily, not strong. Back to the point of the 30 year cycle.. if our game plan is to bury a bunch of trees and regrow them in 30 years, and repeat that once or twice - the climate goals are not going to be achieved. Another reason - small little trees burn easily. Trees need to get to a good height before they are "fire-proof". Trees in the NW drop their lower branches and their trunks grow thick bark allowing for the undergrowth to burn off & leaving the tree alone. This is where you can also get your rapidly growing "new forest". What's more though, if you cut down a forest, trees that are 10-20 years old are more akin to kindling, you wind up with a mega blaze. Where once there was a forest, you get a Savannah. This is happening in california, places that burned so hot, several feet of soil are burned, those forests are truly gone. If anything gets a foot hold again in those areas in the next decade, it'll all burn again before it's all big enough to survive a fire. > If they become decks, paper, or other useful products in between, reducing usage of plastics things which emit carbon, so much the better. The research from the "other side" notes that these "useful" products often go back into the atmosphere within a couple decades. [1] Compare that to the forest, which naturally buries its own trees as they die. Leaves fall, they form new soil along with other fallen trunks. Not to mention that trees do this on time scales of centuries, rather than decades. Point being, over time, the elevation of the forest floor grows. In sum, this idea of burying trees - it's already happening naturally. [1] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08022022/do-young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08022022/do-young-trees-s... For completeness, here is a reference for "young trees" sucking up less carbon, complete with a payed-for google ad ranking: https://www.ncasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NCASI22_Forest_Carbon_YoungVsOld_print.pdf https://www.ncasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NCASI22_For...

by blagie 3y ago

KorematsuFredt 3y ago

Your prof was correct. We need to cut down existing large trees, put them into long term use where they can be used for 100+ years and plant new trees in their place. It is the simplest and very natural way to capture carbon. Fully grown trees are mostly carbon neutral, growing trees on other hand are capturing carbon. Perhaps we can cut down large trees, coat them with very durable recycled plastic and simply store them on coastal line. Canada and USA can heavily subsidize logging industry where 1. They have 100 year plan to plant and cut trees. 2. Wood gets exported to poorer countries where deforestation is a problem.

asimpletune 3y ago

Probably, but let’s leave the super nice movie trees

sirtaj 3y ago

Your prof is not wrong in theory, but in practice we are failing at 3. plant more trees.

hnbad 3y ago
The new growth also needs to account for the emissions of cutting down and processing the old trees (even with solar, machines don't run on sunshine alone) and planting/nurturing the new growth itself. The prof was likely just trying to be provocative, not speaking based on thorough modelling.
- huuhee3 3y ago
  Using concrete for building also causes massive emissions. Generally speaking, making long lasting buildings from wood is ecological compared to alternatives. Of course doing the harvesting in a sustainable way and replanting are necessary for this to be true. IMO old growth forests should be protected, but at the same time we should plant new industrial forests as much as possible, and harvest them for building material. Old agricultural land that is no longer used for farming is ideal for that.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    I'm not saying using wood instead of concrete is bad. I'm just saying "build more houses and use wood" doesn't reduce emissions, it produces them. "Build more houses and don't use wood" of course produces more. But the distinguishing factor here is "use wood" not "build more houses". Likewise planting trees to be used for industry instead of materials with worse emissions is good and planting forests is good but the two are largely unrelated as the kind of forest you want for restoration projects is different from the kind you can use for logging. It's a bit like how there were news headlines about bees becoming endangered followed by tons of startups selling honey bees for greenwashing when honey bees are specifically the one species of bees that is nowhere near endangered because they are used at industrial scales. We need to protect old growth forests but also expand them, because they're vital habitats that help protect biodiversity and maintain plant matter for sustainable carbon capture. We also need industrial wood plantations to produce wood we can use instead of more harmful building materials. We also need to reduce the overall need for building materials, e.g. by investing in long-term sustainable housing projects rather than McMansions with a lifespan of less than one generation.
  - blagie 3y ago
    One of the nice things about concrete -- if done right -- is that it produces emissions only once. We have Roman concrete structures which were still standing 1500 years later (and went down due to war, rather than wear).

elihu 3y ago

The problem is if they become used in disposable or short-lifetime materials, most of that carbon will go right back to being CO2 once the thing is thrown away and it decomposes. Ideally all that stuff would be sent to a facility where it can be properly sequestered long term, but most of it probably won't.

Terr_ 3y ago
I like to give an analogy where plants are like using sponges to control the rising water in a bathtub that has a clogged drain. Sure, you can soak up some water temporarily, but eventually the water comes back out.
blagie 3y ago
How much of it decomposes into the atmosphere? How much stays down? That's a serious question. I have no clear sense of what happens in landfills. For all I know, they might be the new fossil fuel reserves in the year 30,000.

sdenton4 3y ago

Forests do a lot more than hold carbon. And many of these other uses require more than young, fast growing monocultures. Quite a lot of rainfall over land originates as transpiration from forests, for example; they're a key part of the water cycle, holding and releasing water which would otherwise just run into the sea. Likewise, a lot of species depend on healthy first habitat. Clear cut all the trees, and you lose all the species that depends on them. And all the species in adjacent ecosystems which rely on the forests. This isn't to say that tree planting and harvesting can't be a part of carbon management strategies, but that it must be done judiciously. Clear cutting everything and burying it all is as short-sighted as, say, spending a century dumping leaded CO2 fumes into the atmosphere.

skeeter2020 3y ago

>> Convince me otherwise. Who's going to pay you to cut down trees and bury them? Especially since they are considered an incredibly valuable asset by everyone (for very different reasons), from the environmentalist to the unrepentant capitalist.

gdubs 3y ago

Biochar is a lot like this. It's believed to have created the incredible soils of the Amazon basin. Basically, wood gets burned to charcoal rather than ash, and the carbon is then buried – creating rich organic soil. One thing worth mentioning though is that people often forget that the trees themselves are not the only aspect of CO2 when it comes to forestry. So-called "natural forests" are apparently much more effective at sequestering carbon, due to the dense web of life contained within them – much more so than the monoculture forests that tend to get planted these days.

asdff 3y ago

How often do you bury your old deck deep enough to not have decomposition emit gasses to the surface when you replace it though?

pvaldes 3y ago

What matter imparted that professor? > Convince me otherwise Why?

blagie 3y ago
Because we come here to learn, debate, and argue. That sometimes leads to solutions, improvements, or startups, and if nothing else, better civic society and better personal choices.

seadan83 3y ago

The studies that say newly growing forests absorb carbon at a faster rate are suspect (logging industry funded). For starters, I wouldn't believe the logging industry propaganda. First, let's consider tree farms, modern mono-cultures. Please look at google maps at anywhere in the northwest, and you'll see it looks like checkerboards. This is not satellite imagery being stitched together, that is what it looks like. So much forest have been cut and regrown several times over. These tree farms - they're dense, bio-engineer to have small branches that are shed early. The trees grow like an overgrown bush, the canopy is almost exclusively at the top 10% layer. The effective area for photosynthesis is that of a field covered in a thick layer of bushes. Compare that to a field of conifers that have far more photosynthesis area on them overall, it extends from the top of the tree to the even the bottom half, in addition to the tree being taller. In a natural forest trees will fall and create gaps, allowing for more use of the vertical space. A natural forest is effectively a series of vertical gardens. Next, let's consider tree rings. I don't buy the idea that a few saplings are going to do anywhere near the same activity as a 200 foot redwood. The amount of carbon in a tree ring for a 1000 foot tree is likely astounding. A new layer of bark on something that has a 10-40 foot diameter. (Red woods are amazing trees) Next, it takes a good 30 years for that regrowth cycle to happen. What's more, humans have been doing that round-the-clock in North America since Europeans arrived. The "2nd" growth is like the 6th to 10th time we have been through this. The forests that have been managed like this are not great (they have low recreational value, they burn like crazy, they clearly don't have the same mass of green material that would be doing photosynthesis (so I don't buy that the carbon sink activity is lower), they are crap habitat for animals). More so, the wood from these forests is poor, it's soft, warps easily, not strong. Back to the point of the 30 year cycle.. if our game plan is to bury a bunch of trees and regrow them in 30 years, and repeat that once or twice - the climate goals are not going to be achieved. Another reason - small little trees burn easily. Trees need to get to a good height before they are "fire-proof". Trees in the NW drop their lower branches and their trunks grow thick bark allowing for the undergrowth to burn off & leaving the tree alone. This is where you can also get your rapidly growing "new forest". What's more though, if you cut down a forest, trees that are 10-20 years old are more akin to kindling, you wind up with a mega blaze. Where once there was a forest, you get a Savannah. This is happening in california, places that burned so hot, several feet of soil are burned, those forests are truly gone. If anything gets a foot hold again in those areas in the next decade, it'll all burn again before it's all big enough to survive a fire. > If they become decks, paper, or other useful products in between, reducing usage of plastics things which emit carbon, so much the better. The research from the "other side" notes that these "useful" products often go back into the atmosphere within a couple decades. [1] Compare that to the forest, which naturally buries its own trees as they die. Leaves fall, they form new soil along with other fallen trunks. Not to mention that trees do this on time scales of centuries, rather than decades. Point being, over time, the elevation of the forest floor grows. In sum, this idea of burying trees - it's already happening naturally. [1] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08022022/do-young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08022022/do-young-trees-s... For completeness, here is a reference for "young trees" sucking up less carbon, complete with a payed-for google ad ranking: https://www.ncasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NCASI22_Forest_Carbon_YoungVsOld_print.pdf https://www.ncasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NCASI22_For...