this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
108 points (97.4% liked)

World News

38849 readers
1904 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm really trying hard to be more positive in my outlook these days. Stories like this are not helping.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Forests in general shouldn't be seen as a way to "sequester" carbon, trees are just temporary storage for it. They're nice to have, of course, and serve many benefits. But not that one.

[–] SolarMonkey 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

By that logic literally anything other than blasting it into space is temporary. Mountains weather, oceans turn over, even the planet as a whole has a cycle that involves melting the subducted sea floor and releasing gasses.

Sure it’s temporary, but if we have enough temporary storage to offset the (drastically reduced, I should hope) emissions, and continue to replace what is used/burned/etc, does it really matter if it doesn’t last forever?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago

No, by this logic one just needs to take into account how long is required before you consider something "sequestration." Ocean sediment, for example, stays down there for hundreds of millions of years before subduction and vulcanism might bring the carbon back up. So it's not permanent but it's certainly permanent enough.

Trees last for a couple of decades. And once a forest is established they turn over continuously, so the forest as a whole emits as much carbon as it takes in. As we see here with the boreal forests in the article, the carbon comes back out into the atmosphere quite easily. I personally wouldn't consider it a very good "sequestration" method.

If you really want to use trees for carbon sequestration, a good approach might be setting up big tree farms and then sinking the harvested wood into anoxic lakes. That'd take the carbon out of circulation for a long enough time that future generations can figure out what to do with it afterward.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Tbf FaceDeer is kind of right in that there are other forms of vegetation that work better, but they are terrain/location specific, ie: prairie grasses, the kind the buffalo lived off of, have root systems that can be 8-10 ft deep and do in fact live forever.

Where FaceDeer is incorrect is that trees themselves are not carbon sinks. Their root systems are what hold the carbon.

[–] silence7 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Depending on tree species, most of the carbon can be above-ground. This is really common in the tropics

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

You're right. I was only considering the boreal forest and left out southern stock. My bad.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Roots rot too. Otherwise the ground underneath forests would have hundreds of meters of accumulated root mass built up over the millennia.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes they do. But they stay underground, and if the soil remains undisturbed the carbon stays trapped underground.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago

Decay turns carbon into carbon dioxide, a gas. Unless it's injected into deep geological structures it doesn't stay underground.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New York Times:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/12/climate/canada-wildfires.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ck4.nWAZ.DZpQTxivFWK1
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support