Re:Plant CO2 uptake rises by nearly one third in new global ...
by jncfhnb on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @11:06AM
(#42698960)
Sounds dubious. Most trees are not nearly 50% roots by biomass. The roots that remain will get broken down, but not into gases exclusively. A new tree that’s growing is actively capturing new carbon. Cutting down a tree won’t help much, but if a new tree grows where the old one was, it’s hard to find reasoning to suggest a net loss.
Re:Plant CO2 uptake rises by nearly one third in new global ...
by rwyinuse on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @01:48AM
(#42708093)
What happens to the parts that are cut down and used is what matters. If you build long-lasting houses from them, then it's probably good for the climate, as long as new tree is planted in its place. If you use the wood to make toilet paper, then it's not so good for climate since that carbon will return to the atmosphere faster.
Re:Plant CO2 uptake rises by nearly one third in new global ...
by zahlman on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @02:30AM
(#42708322)
>and when the roots break down all that carbon is released to the atmosphere.
How do you figure, exactly?
It is far from straightforward whether it is better to leave the forests standing or cut down and replant. The forestry industry is of course claiming that a cultivated forest is better for the climate. The environmentalists are claiming that old forests that are left alone are better for the climate and in addition better for ecological diversity.
I tend to believe the side whose income doesn’t depend on their claim.