2 ms·

yearly emissions (2022): 37.15 billion tons (per year) Total CO2, from 1850 to 2019: 2400 gigatons (2.4×10^12 tons, ≈ 2.2 × total living biomass on Earth, ≈ 69

yearly emissions (2022): 37.15 billion tons (per year) Total CO2, from 1850 to 2019: 2400 gigatons (2.4×10^12 tons, ≈ 2.2 × total living biomass on Earth, ≈ 69 × total dry biomass on Earth (wolframalpha)) How many building frames are you planning to build?

anonfordays 2y ago
>How many building frames are you planning to build? A lot, lumber has all kinds of uses beyond framing as well. "At this point, it's tempting to dismiss lumber as completely irrelevant to concerns about carbon emissions. But the authors show there are exceptions. In Canada, where timber is a major contributor to the economy, wood products end up sequestering 2.4% of its annual emissions, or over 30% of its industrial emissions. In Sweden, those numbers are 9% of the total emissions and over 70% of industrial emissions. So, when it comes to setting national emissions targets, there are countries where harvesting forests really matters." [0] Thanks for making my point for me: this is a good thing. [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/how-much-carbon-does-our-lumber-sequester/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/how-much-carbon-does...
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  I mean, it says right there in the article: >Even upping the total to 400 megatonnes, however, is not especially comforting given that our annual carbon emissions are well over 350 gigatonnes. "Even under a best-case scenario and when accounting for this gap," Johnston and Radeloff write, "the global potential of [wood products] as a carbon sink is minor and always less than 1 percent of emissions." Less than 1 percent of yearly emissions. It's good there are countries where that percent is higher, but sadly when it comes to CO2 emissions, it's the global result that matters. We not only have to get to zero our current emissions, but we also have to bury back the historic CO2.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >I mean, it says right there in the article Yes, I know, I am the one who linked the article... >Less than 1 percent of yearly emissions. Indeed globally it's a small amount, but it's still a good thing as I originally stated QED. There are too many countries that strip mine their forests out and don't follow sustainable forestry.

anonfordays 2y ago

>How many building frames are you planning to build? A lot, lumber has all kinds of uses beyond framing as well. "At this point, it's tempting to dismiss lumber as completely irrelevant to concerns about carbon emissions. But the authors show there are exceptions. In Canada, where timber is a major contributor to the economy, wood products end up sequestering 2.4% of its annual emissions, or over 30% of its industrial emissions. In Sweden, those numbers are 9% of the total emissions and over 70% of industrial emissions. So, when it comes to setting national emissions targets, there are countries where harvesting forests really matters." [0] Thanks for making my point for me: this is a good thing. [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/how-much-carbon-does-our-lumber-sequester/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/how-much-carbon-does...

GeoAtreides 2y ago
I mean, it says right there in the article: >Even upping the total to 400 megatonnes, however, is not especially comforting given that our annual carbon emissions are well over 350 gigatonnes. "Even under a best-case scenario and when accounting for this gap," Johnston and Radeloff write, "the global potential of [wood products] as a carbon sink is minor and always less than 1 percent of emissions." Less than 1 percent of yearly emissions. It's good there are countries where that percent is higher, but sadly when it comes to CO2 emissions, it's the global result that matters. We not only have to get to zero our current emissions, but we also have to bury back the historic CO2.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  >I mean, it says right there in the article Yes, I know, I am the one who linked the article... >Less than 1 percent of yearly emissions. Indeed globally it's a small amount, but it's still a good thing as I originally stated QED. There are too many countries that strip mine their forests out and don't follow sustainable forestry.