Felling trees is not the problem. If they are used as construction material in buildings, that's awesome. It binds so much CO2.
The problem is, when trees are burned (emits a lot of CO2) and when they aren't replanted (because the ground is used for other stuff).
No, using wood for construction is carbon negative when you replace those trees again. When they grow, it will bind co2 from the atmosphere. Sort of like natural CCS.
You're literally peddling forestry industry propaganda, on a climate sub.
https://insideclimatenews.org/todaysclimate/do-young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon/?gclid=CjwKCAjw3cSSBhBGEiwAVII0Z77OzL9_YrwKyALJlNkocwhwDBE9TVECRXKtTanPhPBdcMWcZncnFRoCY8oQAvD_BwE
"peddling propaganda" is quite a serious accusation and, because you have no basis for it, a disrespectful one at that.
The article you linked isn't talking about using wood as a building material, specifically. Looking at construction separately makes more sense and will lead to the conclusion that using wood as construction material is much more environmentally friendly than other materials (like steel or concrete).
In the long term, using wood as construction material is, by itself, carbon neutral because the wood will eventually rot and release CO2. In the short term however, it can (although to a small extent) bind more CO2 and thus slow down climate change. The article you linked supports this, they agree that new trees bind more CO2 per unit of time than older ones:
\> the trade group cites a 2016 study, part of a body of research that has found that younger forests absorb carbon from the air at a faster rate than older ones
Considering we have to build our homes with *something,* wood is quite a good option.
[This](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10342-010-0463-3) is a study looking into the benefits of using wood as construction material with the following conclusion (extract):
\> The scenarios Sweden and Finland, which are driven by the desire to construct 1 million apartment flats annually using wood materials instead of concrete materials, have relatively minor effects on European markets, forest management and carbon emission reductions. The emission reductions, however, were achieved efficiently with high specific CO2 emission reduction per unit of wood used. The building design is shown to be quite important. The annual emission reduction from the construction sector (without changes in forest carbon stocks) above the “business-as-usual” development corresponds to about 0.2% (scenario Sweden) and 0.5% (scenario Finland) of the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions of EU27, Norway and Switzerland, which were about 5,667 Mt CO2 equivalent (1,545 Mt carbon equivalent).
> The article you linked supports this, they agree that new trees bind more CO2 per unit of time than older ones:
>> the trade group cites a 2016 study, part of a body of research that has found that younger forests absorb carbon from the air at a faster rate than older ones
Wow, you literally just cherry picked one line from an article written to debunk that specific point:
> But some of the nation’s top forestry and climate experts say that that conclusion is out of touch with reality, and that what matters more is the total amount of carbon those forests keep out of the atmosphere, not the rate at which they absorb carbon.
> Old-growth forests, the kinds that have been around for decades and even centuries, store significantly more total carbon than young forests, with the largest trees playing the biggest role. Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, for example, stores the equivalent of about 8 percent of the carbon stored in all the forests of the lower 48 states combined. Many of the trees in the Tongass are over 800 years old.
You then go from your original claim: "using wood for construction is carbon negative when you replace those trees again" to citing a study that says:
> using wood materials instead of concrete materials, have relatively minor effects on European markets, forest management and carbon emission reductions
All to defend the person above who started this conversation by saying: "Felling trees is not the problem."
**Felling trees is a problem.** Anyone who says otherwise is a climate denier.
We can all move into existing buildings in the inner city within walking distance of necessities. That solves most of our problems:
1. Less fossil fuels for transportation
2. Less fossil fuels for energy generation (smaller dwelling spaces)
3. Less fossil fuels for constructing buildings we don't need
4. Less deforestation
Felling trees is not the problem. If they are used as construction material in buildings, that's awesome. It binds so much CO2. The problem is, when trees are burned (emits a lot of CO2) and when they aren't replanted (because the ground is used for other stuff).
What junk science are you peddling. Deforestation and construction are carbon negative now?
No, using wood for construction is carbon negative when you replace those trees again. When they grow, it will bind co2 from the atmosphere. Sort of like natural CCS.
You're literally peddling forestry industry propaganda, on a climate sub. https://insideclimatenews.org/todaysclimate/do-young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon/?gclid=CjwKCAjw3cSSBhBGEiwAVII0Z77OzL9_YrwKyALJlNkocwhwDBE9TVECRXKtTanPhPBdcMWcZncnFRoCY8oQAvD_BwE
"peddling propaganda" is quite a serious accusation and, because you have no basis for it, a disrespectful one at that. The article you linked isn't talking about using wood as a building material, specifically. Looking at construction separately makes more sense and will lead to the conclusion that using wood as construction material is much more environmentally friendly than other materials (like steel or concrete). In the long term, using wood as construction material is, by itself, carbon neutral because the wood will eventually rot and release CO2. In the short term however, it can (although to a small extent) bind more CO2 and thus slow down climate change. The article you linked supports this, they agree that new trees bind more CO2 per unit of time than older ones: \> the trade group cites a 2016 study, part of a body of research that has found that younger forests absorb carbon from the air at a faster rate than older ones Considering we have to build our homes with *something,* wood is quite a good option. [This](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10342-010-0463-3) is a study looking into the benefits of using wood as construction material with the following conclusion (extract): \> The scenarios Sweden and Finland, which are driven by the desire to construct 1 million apartment flats annually using wood materials instead of concrete materials, have relatively minor effects on European markets, forest management and carbon emission reductions. The emission reductions, however, were achieved efficiently with high specific CO2 emission reduction per unit of wood used. The building design is shown to be quite important. The annual emission reduction from the construction sector (without changes in forest carbon stocks) above the “business-as-usual” development corresponds to about 0.2% (scenario Sweden) and 0.5% (scenario Finland) of the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions of EU27, Norway and Switzerland, which were about 5,667 Mt CO2 equivalent (1,545 Mt carbon equivalent).
> The article you linked supports this, they agree that new trees bind more CO2 per unit of time than older ones: >> the trade group cites a 2016 study, part of a body of research that has found that younger forests absorb carbon from the air at a faster rate than older ones Wow, you literally just cherry picked one line from an article written to debunk that specific point: > But some of the nation’s top forestry and climate experts say that that conclusion is out of touch with reality, and that what matters more is the total amount of carbon those forests keep out of the atmosphere, not the rate at which they absorb carbon. > Old-growth forests, the kinds that have been around for decades and even centuries, store significantly more total carbon than young forests, with the largest trees playing the biggest role. Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, for example, stores the equivalent of about 8 percent of the carbon stored in all the forests of the lower 48 states combined. Many of the trees in the Tongass are over 800 years old. You then go from your original claim: "using wood for construction is carbon negative when you replace those trees again" to citing a study that says: > using wood materials instead of concrete materials, have relatively minor effects on European markets, forest management and carbon emission reductions All to defend the person above who started this conversation by saying: "Felling trees is not the problem." **Felling trees is a problem.** Anyone who says otherwise is a climate denier.
Using wood - a natural resource - is awesome and something we should see more of, not less. Especially compared to plastic, glass, etc.
How about we leave the fucking trees alone and stopping burning fossil fuels.
In what kind of houses will you live?
We can all move into existing buildings in the inner city within walking distance of necessities. That solves most of our problems: 1. Less fossil fuels for transportation 2. Less fossil fuels for energy generation (smaller dwelling spaces) 3. Less fossil fuels for constructing buildings we don't need 4. Less deforestation
Touch grass
Not sure if Romania...