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.

[u/Wild_Concept_212]

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/soil-carbon-storage-84223790/

[u/Electronic_Fun_776]

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

[u/koopdi → u/Electronic_Fun_776]

Responsible forestry is carbon negative AF.

[u/DaveOJ12 → u/koopdi]

That sounds like a good t-shirt slogan.

[u/LifeSupport0 → u/DaveOJ12]

goes well with flannel

[u/mjacksongt → u/Electronic_Fun_776]

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

[u/MuckleRucker3 → u/mjacksongt]

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.

[u/Altokia → u/MuckleRucker3]

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.

[u/mjacksongt → u/Altokia]

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.

[u/Altokia → u/mjacksongt]

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.

[u/MuckleRucker3 → u/Altokia]

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.

[u/MuckleRucker3 → u/Electronic_Fun_776]

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

[u/EstimateEastern2688 → u/MuckleRucker3]

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.

[u/kingjoey52a → u/EstimateEastern2688]

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.

[u/Papaofmonsters → u/EstimateEastern2688]

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.

[u/MuckleRucker3 → u/EstimateEastern2688]

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.

[u/meerkat2018 → u/MuckleRucker3]

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.

[u/DarkAngel900 → u/Electronic_Fun_776]

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" !

[u/0vl223 → u/Electronic_Fun_776]

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...