[ben_w]

Technically correct, but about as unhelpful as saying “solar isn’t renewable because the sun will eventually go out”.

Our biology and our biosphere are not adapted to the atmospheric CO2 levels we would have if we burned all the fossil fuels.

[WalterBright]

My point is calling something "carbon neutral" if it is burning wood is equally unhelpful. Nothing is gained by burning a tree you just chopped down instead of burning a tree buried for a million years - the same amount of CO2 is released.

[mkl]

But the tree you just chopped down got its carbon from the atmosphere just a few years ago. That's what makes it carbon neutral. The coal (/gas/oil/etc.) got its carbon from the atmosphere in the far distant past, so from our point of view it's new additional carbon that wasn't in the system before. It can only be considered carbon neutral over a time span of millions of years, which is pretty meaningless.

[WalterBright]

> That's what makes it carbon neutral.

Nope. You're emitting exactly the same CO2.

Want to be green? Burn less. Changing your point of view won't lessen CO2 emissions. Burning less carbon will.

[ben_w]

The CO2 emissions are not themselves the point, the CO2 concentrations are. The concentration is neutral in time scales we care about from wood/alge/bioethanol/etc., but goes up from fossil fuels.

It’s also fine to burn fossil fuels if you can make long-term carbon sinks from other processes, hence people caring about making carbon-rich rocks or whether dead plankton floats our sinks.

It’s a question of being responsible for the consequences of actions, not outright banning those actions before the alternatives have been deployed at scale.

[DagAgren]

"Unhelpful"? We have a specific problem we are trying to solve. That problem is: Too much CO2, right now. The term is obviously useful in solving that problem.

Nobody is worrying about CO2 on geological timescales. It is simply not relevant to any discussion anyone is having, or any problem anyone is trying to solve.

This isn't complicated? How are you managing to miss the point with such vigour?

[WalterBright]

> How are you managing to miss the point with such vigour?

I could ask the same of you - how are you helping matters at all by chopping down a tree and burning it over digging up a tree and burning it? You're emitting the same amount of CO2.

Want to reduce global warming?

1. plant a tree

2. burn less

If you're wondering what to do with the tree after it grows, you can:

1. use it for lumber

2. bury it

[DagAgren]

One does not make the situation worse. The other makes it worse. That's pretty simple.

Neither makes the situation BETTER. But one makes it WORSE.

[Tagbert]

The carbon neutral part is when you plant another tree in place of the tree you just cut down. The new tree then starts taking up the equivalent carbon from the tree you cut down and burned. That is what makes tree farms somewhat carbon neutral. You can’t do that with coal.