4 ms·
A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.
by RivieraKid 1y ago
A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.
- circlefavshape 1y agoI don't think that's true - my understanding is a forest produces soil continuously, and that's a carbon sink
- pfdietz 1y agoSoil too eventually reaches an equilibrium where carbon injection and carbon oxidation are in balance. If what you thought was true, imagine a forest sitting there for millions of years. Where would this permanently sequestered carbon be going? Soils do not become unboundedly thick.
- Geee 1y agoWell, that's what oil and coal are. Oil is formed from marine biomass, and coal is formed from plants.
- pfdietz 1y agoThe rate at which these are formed over time is very very small. Almost all carbon fixed by photosynthesis is oxidized over a much shorter time scale.
- anticensor 1y agoCoal no longer forms, oil is still forming but far slower than the rate consumed.
- circlefavshape 1y agohmmm ... but forests don't actually sit there for millions of years, right? and either way soils get eroded and ultimately end up on the ocean floor https://ijw.org/wild-carbon-storage-in-old-forests/ https://ijw.org/wild-carbon-storage-in-old-forests/
- RivieraKid 1y agoThis was true in the carboniferous period, when the organisms able to metabolize the lignin in trees haven't evolved yet, so the dead trees ended up as coal.
- karolinepauls 1y agoThe world is more complicated than a 17th century lab experiment in combustion. Forests sequester carbon through forest fires producing charcoal. Humans could actually cut down old trees, dry them, and convert them to charcoal later used for soil enrichment. Wetlands capture carbon by incorporating wood from dead trees in anoxic conditions. > When plant productivity exceeds decomposition, net soil carbon accumulation occurs. This process eventually leads to the formation of deep peat deposits, which can accumulate for thousands of years. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44246-024-00135-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44246-024-00135-y (first search result for wetland carbon sink)
- lazytitanic 1y ago> Forests sequester carbon through forest fires producing charcoal Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the carbon in the charcoal resulting from forest fires isn't sequestered any more than the same carbon in the forest when in its un-burned state. The only difference is that, once you have a forest fire, a lot of the carbon is also just released into the atmosphere as CO2 in smoke.
- lithocarpus 1y agoHis point is charcoal doesn't decompose. It's very long term sequestered once it gets into the soil.
- lazide 1y agoBwahaha, this is so ridiculous. Show me the megatons/year of charcoal being produced by the worlds forests eh? We could process them yes, but we can also just make them into timber - or burn them for energy. Or just bury them somewhere under a bunch of clay. Oh, and now we’re back to this thread.
- karolinepauls 1y agoIt's as ridiculous as the comparison of the most recent 12k years of the holocene to the age of plant life on the Earth. As for using lumber for timber, when eventually disposed it would have to be turned into charcoal rather than burned for energy or let decompose in conditions that don't sequester carbon. You also missed the point about using charcoal for soil enrichment.
- griffzhowl 1y agoMost of the land in question isn't a mature ecosystem in equilibrium, and if it is there are other arguments against turning that into cornfields. But let's say the worst case is that it's carbon neutral. The point is that biofuel production isn't carbon neutral. Maybe it could be theoretically, but in practice it takes energy inputs in the production process like in the fertilizers, processing of crop into fuel, and transport/distribution, which makes it net positive for atmospheric carbon.