Re:Third-Biggest U.S. Coal Company Files for Bankruptcy
by addicted on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @05:35AM
(#19908028)
That assumes that young trees and forests have the same carbon capturing efficiencies, when I believe it’s older trees and forests that have significantly greater carbon absorbing capabilities.
Re:Third-Biggest U.S. Coal Company Files for Bankruptcy
by npongratz on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @01:23PM
(#19911486)
I'm unfamiliar with the quality of this publication, but it reports on a study suggesting younger forests are better at carbon dioxide sequestration than older forests:
https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbo...
'Tropical rainforests, the revered "lungs of the planet," were once thought to take the cake when it comes to carbon sequestration. But a new study adds to a growing body of evidence that other types of forest may actually be better at sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Specifically it finds that young temperate forests may be more effective carbon sinks than are old rainforests.'
No they don't. They need to be harvested and used for timber products, where the carbon can stay locked in for decades or longer. The land can then be replanted for more carbon removal.
Ideally you would use trees to make engineered wood products that replace steel and concrete, the production of which also release large amounts of CO2.