Would you then just unnoticingly burn them for energy, and keep telling the customers that you just captured a net amount of carbon?
PS: oh you are jacquesm! :) didn't notice. How are you?
PPS: some critic about the link you sent me ("wood-energy.extension"): I disagree with what they say, in that fallen wood too is a carbon store, and in a forest at equilibrium the amount decomposed by fungi/bacteria is roughly compensated by the newly fallen wood. So that's just a carbon store, and if you begin to burn it you shrink this store.
But burning a preexisting forest is cancelling an existing carbon store and converting lots of solid carbon into atmospheric carbon.
The fact a forest is a carbon store is precisely why a startup such as Pachama exists: they help grow new forests to capture carbon.
https://pachama.com
Would you then just unnoticingly burn them for energy, and keep telling the customers that you just captured a net amount of carbon?
PS: oh you are jacquesm! :) didn't notice. How are you?
PPS: some critic about the link you sent me ("wood-energy.extension"): I disagree with what they say, in that fallen wood too is a carbon store, and in a forest at equilibrium the amount decomposed by fungi/bacteria is roughly compensated by the newly fallen wood. So that's just a carbon store, and if you begin to burn it you shrink this store.