An Introduction to Forest Carbon
northernwoodlands.org
northernwoodlands.org
https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/90/1/125/2605858
Limited harvesting of trees for conversion to long-lived products has some additional effect, but eventually even wood-framed homes get attacked by termites etc, so estimates are that well-designed wood homes have a 100-150 year lifetime. If you dump logs in the anoxic waters of the Black Sea, however, they can last 1000s of years (see old shipwrecks).
The only realistic way to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 level is to steadily eliminate fossil fuels from the energy mix, bringing various renewable energy sources online at the same rate. Yes, that's an expensive, technologically challenging proposition, but so was building the global fossil fuel infrastructure in the first place. So-called 'carbon markets' in contrast have been entirely ineffective in slowing the rate of atmospheric CO2 growth, it's just a game of deck chairs on the Titanic, with some bonuses for biodiversity conservation.
Fundamentally, you can run a modern industrial civilization on renewables - iron and steel, fertilizers and materials, even jet fuel can be produced using carbon and hydrogen sourced from air and water, and with power from sunlight and wind. It's going to take a whole lot of wind turbines and solar panels, however, as well as many new factories. It'll require diversion of a significant fraction of all industrial activity to the task on a global scale.
Not true. In the US, forests remove about 10% of the greenhouse emissions. Can we get more? I think we can, without implausible efforts, increase this to 15% (see note). But even if we can't, this 10% is still very important.
Why? Because it means we need to reduce our emissions by only 90% to achieve net zero, not by 100%.
This might seem insignificant, but it isn't. People like to point out to parts of the economy that appear nearly impossible to de-carbonize, and then throw up their hands and claim that we'll never achieve net zero.
An example is airplane emissions.
But a much more important example is the intermittency issue of solar and wind. Batteries alone can't solve this, not if they don't become 100 times cheaper, and this will not happen in the next 3 decades. But natural gas peaker plants can solve this.
Fun fact: right now the total carbon sequestration provided by the forests is almost precisely equal to the total greenhouse emissions of the natural gas power plants. If you keep these plants, or just a small fraction of them, and use them only to smooth out the electricity output of solar and wind, then the forests will sequester many times more than the peaker plants will emit.
So, all those who say solar and wind can't take us to net zero are wrong.
(Note about potential additional forests sequestration: there are about 600 million acres of forest in the US. There are about 30 million acres planted with corn that is used to produce "bio"-ethanol. If we discontinue that subsidy, and plant the 30 million acres with forests, a simple rule of 3 would indicate that we'll increase sequestration by 5%. However young forests sequester much more carbon, and release much less, that it's quite likely the additional sequestration could be 50% for a few decades. Not forever, but we can buy 3 decades of sequestration, and that's what we need).
Your points about the limitations of forests for carbon sequestration are a good reality check, but there are others that are more optimistic that improved forest management can be play at least a regionally significant role. Here's a recent Harvard Forest publication claiming that forests currently offset about 14% of New England's 2020 fossil fuel emissions, a number which could be increased to 21% with better practices: https://harvardforest1.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.f...
-For example did you know forests are the largest terrestrial carbon sink on Earth, accounting for about 30% of the carbon dioxide absorbed by land-based ecosystems.
-Tropical forests store the most carbon per unit area, but boreal forests and temperate forests also play an important role in global carbon storage.
-Old-growth forests can store up to three times as much carbon as young forests, due to the larger size and greater density of their trees.
-Forests can also be managed to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, which account for about 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
-Forest conservation and restoration can help to mitigate the impacts of climate change by sequestering carbon and preserving biodiversity.
-Forests can also provide other climate-friendly benefits, such as reducing the urban heat island effect and providing shade and wind protection.
-Forest carbon projects, such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), provide financial incentives for developing countries to conserve and sustainably manage their forests.
-Forest carbon offsets, which allow individuals and organizations to offset their carbon emissions by supporting forest conservation or restoration projects, are becoming increasingly popular.
However, in my humble opinion, i think its VERY VERY important to ensure that forest carbon projects are carefully designed and implemented to avoid unintended consequences, such as displacement of local communities or biodiversity loss.
The United Nations has a forest group, here is one of their docs https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/unece-fao-sp-5...
Did they make a dent?
And let's completely ignore that trees burn and biomass rots because the message of "I'm better than you!" is more important than reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Rake America Great Again!