You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
4 points

An individual tree is neutral, but a forest is carbon negative as long as it exists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Untrue.
Just letting a forest grow wild is carbon neutral. The soil reaches a point of saturation. Eventually the dead trees get eaten by detritivores, releasing the captured carbon back into the air.
Keeping it sequestered long term requires burying it deep - the trees would need to be cut down and transported to where bacteria, fungus, and so on can’t eat them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
  • forest does not exist. Carbon is in atmosphere
  • forest grows, carbon is bound up in whatever lives in the forest
  • forest reaches steady state, carbon emitted by decomposition is balanced out by new growth

It’s net negative as long as it exists. What I said is true.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
*

It reaches an equilibrium where it’s producing as much as much as its scrubbing at some point though.

And as it dies off it will produce more than it can scrub. All its doing is delaying the issue for someone else to deal with.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Nature Enthusiasts

!nature@lemmy.world

Create post

For all media, news and discussion focusing on nature!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

1-No advertising or spam.

2-No harrassment of any kind.

3-No illegal or NSFW or gore content.

Community stats

  • 45

    Monthly active users

  • 56

    Posts

  • 117

    Comments

Community moderators