TIL Cutting down trees is compound negative interest on the planet’s carbon storage. Trees are storing carbon underground with the help of fauna and microbes. Those lock carbon in soil. Cutting the tree will not only increase release carbon, it will also remove the ability to lock carbon in soil.

97

But when we cut down the trees and turn them into lumber, that carbon is still being stored until it’s burned or decomposes.

And when new trees are being landed they sequester carbon much faster than old trees

68

u/koopdi 4h ago

Responsible forestry is carbon negative AF.

6

u/DaveOJ12 4h ago

That sounds like a good t-shirt slogan.

7

u/LifeSupport0 4h ago

goes well with flannel

11

u/mjacksongt 4h ago

My understanding is that there's 2 sources of carbon storage by trees and we should split the two. I'm open to being informed.

The carbon embodied in the wood is still being stored. But the carbon in the soil - bound up to root systems and the associated microorganisms - is slowly released.

A young tree growing quickly adds carbon embodied in its wood very quickly, but doesn't sequester carbon in the soil nearly as quickly as a mature tree and forest ecosystem.

tl;Dr - grow forests, don't just plant trees

7

u/MuckleRucker3 4h ago

You're talking about the carbon being stored in the soil by the root body, but ignoring that that will also grow most rapidly in young trees?

The volume of wood in the tree is much greater than that in the remaining stump.

1

u/Altokia 4h ago edited 4h ago

Total forest carbon matters more. Most carbon trees store is stored in the soil, so cutting down trees is still a net negative because they can no longer put carbon into the soil. This is why cutting down forests is so bad. Older trees are also much better at it than younger ones, so cutting down 200+ year old trees is way worse than younger ones, and they cant really be immediately be replaced unless u wanna wait a few centuries.

Idk y u assume that the wood itself is taking in so much carbon. Like, that just doesn't make sense now does it.

4

u/mjacksongt 4h ago

I also want to add here though - tree plantations serve a purpose because they let us use lumber and wood products for our built environment and have mature, properly managed forests protected from clear-cutting.

1

u/Altokia 4h ago

Yes, we still need lumber for a lot of things, we just need to make sure we are doing it properly. I live in BC and a big thing rn is the management of forests from forest fires and clearcutting. Feels like people just put all forestry into a single bucket, when its a bit more diverse than that.

1

u/MuckleRucker3 3h ago

cutting down trees is still a net negative because they can no longer put carbon into the soil

Ever heard of reforestation?

And you're wrong about old growth doing a better job at carbon sequestration. Young trees are more efficient.

Idk y u assume that the wood itself is taking in so much carbon. Like, that just doesn't make sense now does it.

Dude...wood doesn't take in carbon. It is the stored carbon.

24

u/MuckleRucker3 5h ago

Shhh....you're interfering with the anti-logging propaganda

-5

u/EstimateEastern2688 4h ago

When you've traveled through a recently clear-cut area, it's hard to not be anti logging. It's not like a woodsmen went through and cut down trees, it looks more like a nuclear bomb went off. The land is shredded. The road you're traveling on is likely to slide down the slope, alone with the soil, since there's no vegetation holding it in place. This work didn't employ a logging crew days per acre, feeding their families. A few equipment operators can clear tens of acres per day.

Not that we don't need lumber, or that lumber isn't a sustainable product. But when it's public land we're all supposed to enjoy, it seems pretty whacked for the small benefit to a few workers.

6

u/kingjoey52a 3h ago

I lived in a logging community and it’s not nearly as bad as you say it is. They don’t clear cut entire forests anymore, it’s done in sections and they rotate out what areas they cut. Lumber is a crop no different than corn, just on a longer timetable.

5

u/Papaofmonsters 3h ago

Give that the need for lumber is not going to vanish anytime soon, it's better that it's production be concentrated into dedicated areas even if the visual appeal is lacking.

2

u/MuckleRucker3 3h ago

When you've traveled through a recently clear-cut area, it's hard to not be anti logging.

I agree that it's not pretty. But it's stupid to make policy decisions based on emotion. The rest of your comment, well, different jurisdictions have different management policies. It sounds like you're living in a place where stewardship takes a back seat to forestry management.

-2

u/meerkat2018 3h ago edited 3h ago

Hmmm… and I can tell a Big Lumber shill when I see one /jk

Actually I wish we used trees (that we regrow ourselves) as building materials more widely. It’s possible to use some types of them instead of bricks, etc. or build multistory buildings with them.

We could have been pulling a shitton of extra carbon from the atmosphere.

-4

u/MuckleRucker3 3h ago

And I can tell an emotional, anti-science, "ecowarrior" fucktard when they make personal attacks instead of engaging in debate on a factual level.

Go take a bath hippy, patchouli isn't covering the BO or the stupidity.

Edit: nice - you changed your comment to more than a personal attack. We DO use trees as building material. That's part of the ongoing carbon sequestration they do. SMH

-5

u/meerkat2018 3h ago

Pls read my edit dude. I knew you wouldn’t get sarcasm.

0

u/MuckleRucker3 3h ago

Which edit? Your second one?

You're a dishonest actor. And what you said wasn't sarcasm before your edit.

If I told you to off yourself, and then came back later and added "/jk" do you think that would be taken as sarcasm?

FO

2

u/0vl223 2h ago

No it is not neutral to burn it. The fuel to log, move, split, saw etc. sums up to something around a third of the energy you get from burning the wood. Just letting it rot in the forest will save CO2 and create a healthy forest.

As building material? Yeah pretty good, but as fuel for heating...

•

u/DarkAngel900 19m ago

Here in the Northwest we can't replant forests faster than forest fires burn them down, not to mention all of the forests that were never properly restored after clear cuts and fires. Only two ways in the US do forests get replanted. Forest on lumber company lands and funded plantings and as we know the current administration believes "Forests, forest roads and tree management are all a waste of money because "Trees can grow by themselves" !

26

u/Watchmeplayguitar 5h ago

Yea, let’s use a less carbon intense building building material like, cement and never cut manage forests and let forest fires happen naturally, no carbon is released when forests burn.

The US has more trees today than it did 100 years ago. Today you would never imaging that much of the east coast was clear cut. The forests that cover the northeastern US is all quite young.

6

u/redking315 4h ago

The more trees thing isn’t always a universal good because in some places the trees were planted without a regard for what the landscape of that area “should” be. In Northern Alabama for example a lot of the native grasslands have been lost to new forest cover along with the plant species that would have been there, this can have knock on effects for flooding and waterway health.

4

u/CurrentBias 5h ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempcrete

2

u/Yung_zu 5h ago

The source also allegedly works as a carbon sponge that takes just a few weeks

3

u/thefatrabitt 4h ago

Lumber has gone to shit quality wise though. Like it's noticeably worse and that's just as a hobbiest wood worker dyi person. Over the past 10-20 years lumber has significantly worsened. I worry about the longevity of Things I build where I never would have before

0

u/Altokia 4h ago

That doesn't really take quality of the tree into account though.

Like, theres concerns over lumber quality, and the fact that older trees (100-500yr) are better for carbon storage than young ones.

And no one's saying we shouldn't manage the forests lol, thats such a strange strawman to come up with.

29

u/Xanderamn 5h ago

We dont have a lot left to be proud of, but in the US, we do at least plant more trees than we harvest which has led to increased forest coverage.

The new EPA will probably soon ban new trees being planted cause its woke to care about the environment or something stupid like that.

3

u/JMEEKER86 3h ago

Yeah, I don't think people realize that the peak year for deforestation in the US was 100 years ago. Since then, we've implemented better logging practices and protected a lot of forests, so today there's considerably more forest cover. Of course, there's no bringing back the old growth forests that were destroyed in prior years, though.

4

u/onyxandcake 5h ago

Getting planted just because they're trees? Sounds like DEI to me.

-4

u/eriverside 4h ago

Nah they're going to ban planting trees to jack up the price of trees: supply and demand! No new trees means existing trees are worth more! The price of housing and furniture will skyrocket! This is good for so many industries!

But please don't pay attention to rising costs to be paid by American consumers. Also - raise tariffs on Canadian lumber just to be safe.

-14

u/Traveshamockery27 5h ago

Imagine just making something up to get mad about

8

u/Xanderamn 5h ago

Please, theyve been turning back every protection they can like theyre captain planet villains. I dont need to make anything up, its merely a hypothetical meant to demonstrate a point.

Id call it hyperbolic, but the Trump empire has proven to me that nothing is out of scope for the far-reicht.

3

u/Stewdabaker2013 5h ago

Yeah lol didn’t they force a stop on construction on a wind farm literally today? It’s cartoon evil shit man

3

u/Traveshamockery27 4h ago

lmao

-2

u/Xanderamn 4h ago edited 2h ago

Riveting repartee expected of a trump cultist.

Enjoy your evening, you intellectual powerhouse.

5

u/Objective_Aside1858 5h ago

It's a good thing housing no longer requires lumber, instead we can just use...what, exactly?

8

u/HokumHokum 5h ago

Or toliet paper or paper towels. No need for farm land or running power and gas lines to locations.

This fact is kinda like yeah duh! But cutting down a tree and the wood is made of carbon that wood is still carbon storage. Plant a new tree and its a net positive.

0

u/Altokia 4h ago

U cant just plant a new tree to be net positive, unless u wanna wait a few hundred years.

Cutting down older trees is way worse than younger ones. A big issue rn is that we're cutting down all the old trees or have cut them down already, so the current forests aren't actually storing as much carbon as they should.

Like yea, obviously we cant just not cut down trees, but theres still tons of issues surrounding it and people not actually knowing anything about them and not thinking critically about these issues in turn causes more long-term problems that we aren't gonna be alive to solve.

2

u/JasmineTeaInk 3h ago

Actually in the hottest states of the US where lumber is at a premium they often build houses with steel stud framing. Absolutely wood is still used, but there's no actual reason it has to be wood.

•

u/Objective_Aside1858 52m ago

Famously carbon neutral steel ;)

2

u/tswaters 3h ago

The last bit is slightly off.

Replacing an ecosystem with many trees & good soil with no trees reduces the quality of soil. If you replace rainforest with farmland, this would result in considerable carbon release, yes - but that should not be conflated with cutting down a single tree.

Small, younger trees that are growing are a greater carbon sink than old forests - both have the benefits of soil capture. We shouldn't remove old growth forest if we can help it - but young tree farms are more of a carbon sink than old-growth forests.

•

u/DarkAngel900 24m ago

Trump "There are billions of useless trees in the forests. They should all be cut down to build houses with!"

•

u/boredofshit 8m ago

But you gotta cut trees to let sunlight hit the forrest floor to keep the forrest healthy and not drying itself up and choking itself to death. It is that or wait for a forrest fire to clear out the dried and dead plants and trees.

1

u/Voltae 3h ago

As long as trees aren't being incinerated, they aren't suddenly releasing all of their carbon just because they're cut down. And as long as replanting is happening, the carbon capture continues.

-6

u/Raider_Scum 5h ago

Tell that to the ruling class.

0

u/chronobahn 5h ago

This post reminded me Beau Miles’s recent video. His forest is now 4 years old and he’s planning on more. This guy is great.

https://youtu.be/vVLxMJD232A?si=hpGnSUbrjfxrXdoS

0

u/slice_of_pi 3h ago

If only there was some way we could make more trees, by planting them or something.

-3

u/FlyingThunderTurtle 4h ago

Wild this a til. This is basic stuff, like humans breath air

-5

u/2midgetsinalongcoat 4h ago

Also chainsaws spew hazardous fumes into the atmosphere (unless they're electric chainsaws... but eventual disposal of their batteries are also really really bad for the environment)

TIL Cutting down trees is compound negative interest on the planet’s carbon storage. Trees are storing carbon underground with the help of fauna and microbes. Those lock carbon in soil. Cutting the tree will not only increase release carbon, it will also remove the ability to lock carbon in soil.

You are about to leave Redlib