Strictly by carbon concerns, we should encourage people to cut down and then plant replacement trees. Cutting down old forests is bad for the ecosystems they create - but growing new trees will...
should trees / lumber also have added carbon costs attached to them to mitigate the destruction of forests and encourage alternative solutions to lumber?
Strictly by carbon concerns, we should encourage people to cut down and then plant replacement trees. Cutting down old forests is bad for the ecosystems they create - but growing new trees will sequester more carbon than leaving forests alone.
Although the best option would be to plant new forests.
Yes and no. Old-growth forests also support more wildlife which also sequester carbon. Think rainforest instead of christmas tree farm. We should most definitely create new growth, but not at the...
Yes and no. Old-growth forests also support more wildlife which also sequester carbon. Think rainforest instead of christmas tree farm.
We should most definitely create new growth, but not at the expense of old growth. Old growth doesn't need replaced, just periodically pruned.
Related: We need more controlled burns to mitigate this in the short term.
Also, I think we're only going tto be ble to replant to a point. We need to reduce consumption across the board. Not just with emmission-reducing things, but with all production collectively.
Increasing quality of goods to support repairability will do more for our planet than eliminating all combustion engines.
Eliminating pollution (single use plastics especially) means healthier ecosystems. Big animals sequester carbon, eat small animals who do as well, who eat the plants who consume carbon.
Everyone focuses on emissions and not the dying ecosystems, which are just as big, if not bigger factor.
I think the results are mixed, esp since new growth will have denser tree plantings. The real answer is only make new forests, not try to hyperoptimize existing ones.
I think the results are mixed, esp since new growth will have denser tree plantings.
The real answer is only make new forests, not try to hyperoptimize existing ones.
Strictly by carbon concerns, we should encourage people to cut down and then plant replacement trees. Cutting down old forests is bad for the ecosystems they create - but growing new trees will sequester more carbon than leaving forests alone.
Although the best option would be to plant new forests.
Yes and no. Old-growth forests also support more wildlife which also sequester carbon. Think rainforest instead of christmas tree farm.
We should most definitely create new growth, but not at the expense of old growth. Old growth doesn't need replaced, just periodically pruned.
Related: We need more controlled burns to mitigate this in the short term.
Also, I think we're only going tto be ble to replant to a point. We need to reduce consumption across the board. Not just with emmission-reducing things, but with all production collectively.
Increasing quality of goods to support repairability will do more for our planet than eliminating all combustion engines.
Eliminating pollution (single use plastics especially) means healthier ecosystems. Big animals sequester carbon, eat small animals who do as well, who eat the plants who consume carbon.
Everyone focuses on emissions and not the dying ecosystems, which are just as big, if not bigger factor.
I think the results are mixed, esp since new growth will have denser tree plantings.
The real answer is only make new forests, not try to hyperoptimize existing ones.