3 ms·
Someone else pointed it out in a different way. Forrest only captures carbon as it grows. A fully grown forest is carbon neutral. Specific type of march land an
by aDyslecticCrow 2y ago
Someone else pointed it out in a different way. Forrest only captures carbon as it grows. A fully grown forest is carbon neutral. Specific type of march land and oceans are the only ecosystems that properly capture and store carbon continuously.
So we need to chop the trees down again and plant new ones. Which is more feasible than technological carbon capture, but still a drop in the bucket of what is needed.
- pabs3 2y agoThis guy argues that mature forest ecosystems are better carbon sequesters than immature ones or monoculture forests, due to biodiversity, leaf litter, fungi, soil etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Crowther_(ecologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Crowther_(ecologist) https://crowtherlab.com/ https://crowtherlab.com/ https://iview.abc.net.au/show/forest https://iview.abc.net.au/show/forest https://www.memorabletv.com/news/the-forest-trillion-tree-hype/ https://www.memorabletv.com/news/the-forest-trillion-tree-hy...
- Qwertious 2y agoThere's a ton of carbon sequestered in soil, that is released when the ground is torn up (e.g. when clearing an area for replanting) and then only recovers over centuries (which is essentially permanent loss, in the current context) If you cut down an entire forest to bury it (with hypothetical carbon-neutral machinery), then replant the entire forest, you can still end up emitting more carbon than you store.