6 ms·

It makes perfect sense. Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest. The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's

by knappe 1y ago

It makes perfect sense. Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest. The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The land used is not free; it could have instead stayed a forest and remained a carbon sink. When you compare wood pellets using for generating energy and compare it to other forms of energy generation it no longer holds up as a renewable resource after you take into account the land that could have been kept instead as a forest and carbon sink.

lazide 1y ago
Forests are not long term carbon sinks. They flatline rather quickly. This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil. Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning. The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 year old range, because that is when the bulk of the actual growth is occurring. Renewable doesn’t mean ‘indefinite carbon sink’. Renewable means ‘renews’. This entire discussion is incredibly ridiculous.
- fodkodrasz 1y ago
  The soil they create, if they stay alive and are able to retain the soil layer, is gradually washed away (and locally replenished) and is fertilizing the lowlands.
- knappe 1y ago
  Look dude, read the papers or read the book. I don't have much more to offer you. This isn't just about the forest itself but about the land used to grow the forest. "In the Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests, published in Nature in 2023, WRI researchers using a biophysical model estimated that annual wood harvests over the next few decades will emit 3.5-4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. That is more than 3 times the world’s current annual average aviation emissions. These wood-harvest emissions occur because the great majority of carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere after harvest when roots and slash decompose; as most wood is burned directly for heat or electricity or for energy at sawmills or paper mills; and when discarded paper products, furniture and other wood products decompose or burn. Another recent paper in Nature found that the word’s remaining forests have lost even more carbon, primarily due to harvesting wood, than was lost historically by converting forests to agriculture (other studies have found similar results1). Based on these analyses, a natural climate solution would involve harvesting less wood and letting more forests regrow. This would store more carbon as well as enhance forest biodiversity."[0] [0]https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emissions-economic-vs-biophysical-models https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emis... And the original paper that introduced the idea of land use https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
    So I see what you’re saying. You’re talking about the whole system. Take land and then plant trees, the trees sequester carbon as they grow, some of them fall to the forest floor continuing to sequester carbon. But, I think the issue with your argument is, this process isn’t indefinite. The natural cycle is that these trees will decay, fall, rot (releasing carbon naturally) or natural forest fires will burn them anyways (releasing carbon naturally). Then more trees will take their places and sequester carbon, ad infinitum in the cycle that has taken place for the last 2 billion years since the Paleoproterozoic era. But I see no difference between humans speeding this cycle by planting quick growth trees, cutting them down, releasing their stored carbon, planting more. It’s the same thing being sequestered and released continuously.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      The planet isn't infinite: by running the cycle more quickly, you knock the "baseline" atmospheric carbon up a few more ppm. This has knock-on effects.
      - lazide 1y ago
        Even if we converted all arable land in the United States to forest, best case we would take many years to sequester even a single years fossil carbon emissions. And we’d all starve to death in the process. Any co2 released by harvesting a forest, is very shortly taken back up again by the forest regrowing. Within a lifetime for sure. Trees are nice, I get it. But this is all in the noise.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Where do these numbers come from?
        lazide 1y ago
        USFS studies, and US data on overall arable land. I broke it out in a prior thread exhaustively, but it’s been covered in other areas too. Here is one [https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo059.pdf https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo059.pdf] The US emits a truly massive amount of fossil carbon. [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...], “Total emissions in 2022 are 6,343.2 Million Metric Tons of CO₂ equivalent”. Yes, that is 6 billion metric tons of co2 equivalent a year. 6 trillion kg. Or about 20,000 kg per person in the US, every year. Currently (since ~ 1990), US forested land is estimated to offset ~ 13% of fossil co2 emissions. Forests cover 36% (!) of US land area, and have been slowly increasing since ~ 2000. Farmland covers another 39% of US land [https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/Census22_HL_FarmsFarmland.pdf https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/Censu...]. Pretty much all the rest is either 1) waterways, 2) cities, 3) non-arable land like steep mountains and deserts with no ready source of water. So even with a back of the envelope, easy math, if we changed all our farmland to grow forests, we’d roughly double the amount of carbon we could sequester - which would still be ~ 25% of the amount of fossil carbon we’re emitting, every year. And then we would still need to DO something with all that wood, because burning it or letting it rot just releases all it’s co2 back into the atmosphere. And we’d all starve to death in the meantime.
- vintermann 1y ago
  Sinks is about flows. The question is about reservoirs. Forests are a long term carbon reservoir. Yes, it's possible to regrow it and let it stay that way. But we don't do that if we regularly chop it down for wood pellets. If we regularly do that, then the carbon in it will spend more of its time in the atmosphere and cause trouble, even if it wasn't pumped from a fossil reservoir. This is why you can't ignore land use changes in carbon budgets. It's a sound argument, it's not ridiculous at all.
  - rrobukef 1y ago
    I disagree, wood pellets are more expensive than oil for energy, especially if only counting the production cost of oil w/o the tax. So even the first time an old forest is cut, when the land changes, it already displaces oil use. At greater expense even, so demand would be reduce the amount energy produced further. Furthermore Europe can also choose to replant non-forest land or replant permanently afterwards.
- littlexsparkee 1y ago
  Even fast growing trees need 10-20 years to start storing significant amounts of carbon and old-growth forests can sequester it for hundreds of years.
  - lazide 1y ago
    The challenge is that old growth forests, while retaining carbon, don’t pull much net carbon from the atmosphere. Their ‘spring’ is nearly fully compressed. They are really beautiful and important, but they aren’t doing much when it comes to reducing atmospheric carbon anymore. As ugly as it is, chopping them down (as long as we can stop the wood from rotting/burning/etc) and then having new trees grow in their place does more actual atmospheric carbon reduction.

by knappe 1y ago

lazide 1y ago

Forests are not long term carbon sinks. They flatline rather quickly. This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil. Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning. The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 year old range, because that is when the bulk of the actual growth is occurring. Renewable doesn’t mean ‘indefinite carbon sink’. Renewable means ‘renews’. This entire discussion is incredibly ridiculous.

fodkodrasz 1y ago
The soil they create, if they stay alive and are able to retain the soil layer, is gradually washed away (and locally replenished) and is fertilizing the lowlands.
knappe 1y ago
Look dude, read the papers or read the book. I don't have much more to offer you. This isn't just about the forest itself but about the land used to grow the forest. "In the Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests, published in Nature in 2023, WRI researchers using a biophysical model estimated that annual wood harvests over the next few decades will emit 3.5-4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. That is more than 3 times the world’s current annual average aviation emissions. These wood-harvest emissions occur because the great majority of carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere after harvest when roots and slash decompose; as most wood is burned directly for heat or electricity or for energy at sawmills or paper mills; and when discarded paper products, furniture and other wood products decompose or burn. Another recent paper in Nature found that the word’s remaining forests have lost even more carbon, primarily due to harvesting wood, than was lost historically by converting forests to agriculture (other studies have found similar results1). Based on these analyses, a natural climate solution would involve harvesting less wood and letting more forests regrow. This would store more carbon as well as enhance forest biodiversity."[0] [0]https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emissions-economic-vs-biophysical-models https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emis... And the original paper that introduced the idea of land use https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861
- MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
  So I see what you’re saying. You’re talking about the whole system. Take land and then plant trees, the trees sequester carbon as they grow, some of them fall to the forest floor continuing to sequester carbon. But, I think the issue with your argument is, this process isn’t indefinite. The natural cycle is that these trees will decay, fall, rot (releasing carbon naturally) or natural forest fires will burn them anyways (releasing carbon naturally). Then more trees will take their places and sequester carbon, ad infinitum in the cycle that has taken place for the last 2 billion years since the Paleoproterozoic era. But I see no difference between humans speeding this cycle by planting quick growth trees, cutting them down, releasing their stored carbon, planting more. It’s the same thing being sequestered and released continuously.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    The planet isn't infinite: by running the cycle more quickly, you knock the "baseline" atmospheric carbon up a few more ppm. This has knock-on effects.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Even if we converted all arable land in the United States to forest, best case we would take many years to sequester even a single years fossil carbon emissions. And we’d all starve to death in the process. Any co2 released by harvesting a forest, is very shortly taken back up again by the forest regrowing. Within a lifetime for sure. Trees are nice, I get it. But this is all in the noise.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Where do these numbers come from?
        lazide 1y ago
        USFS studies, and US data on overall arable land. I broke it out in a prior thread exhaustively, but it’s been covered in other areas too. Here is one [https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo059.pdf https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo059.pdf] The US emits a truly massive amount of fossil carbon. [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...], “Total emissions in 2022 are 6,343.2 Million Metric Tons of CO₂ equivalent”. Yes, that is 6 billion metric tons of co2 equivalent a year. 6 trillion kg. Or about 20,000 kg per person in the US, every year. Currently (since ~ 1990), US forested land is estimated to offset ~ 13% of fossil co2 emissions. Forests cover 36% (!) of US land area, and have been slowly increasing since ~ 2000. Farmland covers another 39% of US land [https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/Census22_HL_FarmsFarmland.pdf https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/Censu...]. Pretty much all the rest is either 1) waterways, 2) cities, 3) non-arable land like steep mountains and deserts with no ready source of water. So even with a back of the envelope, easy math, if we changed all our farmland to grow forests, we’d roughly double the amount of carbon we could sequester - which would still be ~ 25% of the amount of fossil carbon we’re emitting, every year. And then we would still need to DO something with all that wood, because burning it or letting it rot just releases all it’s co2 back into the atmosphere. And we’d all starve to death in the meantime.
vintermann 1y ago
Sinks is about flows. The question is about reservoirs. Forests are a long term carbon reservoir. Yes, it's possible to regrow it and let it stay that way. But we don't do that if we regularly chop it down for wood pellets. If we regularly do that, then the carbon in it will spend more of its time in the atmosphere and cause trouble, even if it wasn't pumped from a fossil reservoir. This is why you can't ignore land use changes in carbon budgets. It's a sound argument, it's not ridiculous at all.
- rrobukef 1y ago
  I disagree, wood pellets are more expensive than oil for energy, especially if only counting the production cost of oil w/o the tax. So even the first time an old forest is cut, when the land changes, it already displaces oil use. At greater expense even, so demand would be reduce the amount energy produced further. Furthermore Europe can also choose to replant non-forest land or replant permanently afterwards.
littlexsparkee 1y ago
Even fast growing trees need 10-20 years to start storing significant amounts of carbon and old-growth forests can sequester it for hundreds of years.
- lazide 1y ago
  The challenge is that old growth forests, while retaining carbon, don’t pull much net carbon from the atmosphere. Their ‘spring’ is nearly fully compressed. They are really beautiful and important, but they aren’t doing much when it comes to reducing atmospheric carbon anymore. As ugly as it is, chopping them down (as long as we can stop the wood from rotting/burning/etc) and then having new trees grow in their place does more actual atmospheric carbon reduction.