7 ms·
> In many ways, it's even worse for the environment than just burning the oil directly. This seems like a testable claim. Is there research about this subject
by gerbal 6y ago
> In many ways, it's even worse for the environment than just burning the oil directly.
This seems like a testable claim. Is there research about this subject that could confirm or debunk this claim?
- 762236 6y agoIt can be tested in the other direction too: is there research that can confirm or debunk the opposite claim?
- _michaelll 6y agoto confirm one is to debunk the other of course.
- vkou 6y agoOnly napkin math. The typical sources of climate change denial don't see biomass as a threat (Because it is tiny, growing slowly, and augments fossil fuels, not replaces them), so they don't fund any research to attack it. The proponents of it probably know that its numbers don't look great, so they don't push for research that thoroughly audits it. It's also difficult to thoroughly audit the carbon costs of a complex supply chain that has to move tens and hundreds of millions tonnes of lumber - when the costs greatly vary based on how the lumber was sourced.