• Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s probably more complex than this. For example, every tree you remove mean less carbon capture in the world.

    • theMechanic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you remove a mature tree and replace it with a young one, you will actually increase uptake as the growing tree will absorb more CO2 than a mature one will.

      However, I agree that it is complex because you need to take a long term view and there are always risks. For example a wild fire would offsetting the equation as the young trees are more vulnerable.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Its not that simple sadly, saplings and young trees capture significantly less than older mature trees. We’re talking a 30+ year return on that carbon investment. Planting trees and restoring wilderness for carbon capture and sustainable ecosystems is good, ripping them up every 20 to 40 years for biofuels is not. If your end goal is sustainable energy, nuclear, wind or even solar would be better use of that space and still probably have land left over for forestey renewal. The reason nuclear is the ecologically best choice is because it uses the least amount of land per kwh produced, leaving more land that can be used for conservation and long term carbon capture efforts.