• Jambalaya
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    If we are looking at just the carbon though, that carbon is collected by the 2 year old trees, right? So it’s net carbon-neutral in that sense.

    • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      The tree itself would in theory have consumed as much carbon as it releases when burned, but when you take into consideration harvesting and processing, then it’s still a net producer.

      • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        It should also be noted that the order of magnitude is very different to fossil fuels. And at least in theory the harvesting and progressing can be done using renewable energy sources (at least for large parts of it). We are very far from actually doing this though.

        The main issue in practice is the combustion byproducts and fine particulates.

    • wolfyvegan@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Depends on what would be there if those trees weren’t grown/cut for wood. Old-growth forest stores more carbon than young forest. This perhaps would have been a more important point for the author to have made.