Hacker News Reader

Comment by chordalkeyboard | Hacker News Reader

Its yearly co2 consumption that they are responsible for sustaining. The plants are already consuming co2, this way that will continue to be the case.

View on HN

Forests are not perpetual carbon sinks, as trees eventually die and then decompose, releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere.

At best, a young and growing forest can be a temporary carbon sink, until it reaches maturity (and steady state).

Alternatively, a forest might support continual carbon sinking if and only if the recently dead and/or mature trees were somehow harvested and treated/stored in such a way that their carbon would not decompose and re-enter the rest of the biosphere.

Is that accurate? I can't believe that decomposition releases _all_ of the carbon into the atmosphere. Certainly a good amount of it is sequestered into the ground (e.g. coal). Thus a standing forest is never completely carbon neutral.

You are a bit out of date on this, wood isn't really turning into coal anymore these days, since bacteria and fungi have developed the ability to decompose lignin 300Ma ago.

The only thing comparable these days is peat bogs that act as carbon sinks (because their plant matter does not decompose due to acidic and anaerobic environment).

Peat bogs are flammable and can often catch fire, which in turn releases CO2. On timescales that matter, they are but temporary measures.

How exactly would wood just turn into coal, once it dies and falls down? You need really high pressures to form coal, this just doesn't happen without the residual biomass getting burried in some massive geological event. Dead trees are eaten by mushrooms and insects, which all produce CO2.

Broadly speKing, it is - coal does not really form on the timelines relevant to human civilisation

Yes. We should build more using Wood and less using Concrete.

We could make oil or coal and put it under the ground.

The plants are not really consuming CO2 in a grown forest, or more accurately they are consuming and releasing CO2 at the same rate.

A growing forest does consume CO2 more than it releases, but it does not seem to be the case now

Your comment, and the sibling that made similar observations, are correct. But a regulatory system where people are taxed on the net carbon contribution of their holdings is likely to reward them for owning land that is occuppied by plants.

But the point still is that net carbon contribution of land occupied by plants is zero.

I think the point from Ikea’s perspective is that the regulatory regime may consider it to be net positive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com