[Pfhreak]

This is a totally valid question that is getting down votes it shouldn't. And the answer is yes, there are alternatives to burning.

Burning will return what the tree pulled out of the atmosphere, so it's already carbon neutral.

Decomposition and fertilization (eg hugelkulture) will also release greenhouse gases. So, again, carbon neutral.

Pyrolysis allows you to produce synthetic gas, biochar, and energy from the wood. Biochar is a useful industrial and agricultural product, and it's pretty much just solid carbon. Hypothetically you could bury it and be carbon negative, but there isn't really anyone doing that at scale.

You could also bury the wood deeply enough that it wouldn't re enter the carbon cycle, but wood is heavy, large, and difficult to move around.

I hope your down voters realize the intent of your question (can we sequester the carbon from forest waste/slash rather than releasing it?) and adjust their votes.

[jstanley]

> Burning will return what the tree pulled out of the atmosphere, so it's already carbon neutral.

Couldn't you make the same argument about burning literally anything?

Doesn't burning oil just return carbon to the atmosphere that was already in the atmosphere at one point anyway?

[Pfhreak]

Coal and oil are adding carbon to the atmosphere that was not there within human timeframes. Yes, perhaps on a geologic scale it is neutral, but we generally think about carbon on a human scale.

[diamondlovesyou]

Oil is CO2 that was previously removed from the cycle. So carbon positive.

[jekdoce]

Thank you for seeing the question for what it is. Genuinely was wondering if there are good alternatives to controlled burns. If not then of course controlled burns are significantly better than wild fires.

One thought that crossed my mind was if a burn after collecting the debris can be used for energy generation with proper emissions filtering/control etc. That would also offset other energy related emissions. But as someone below writes perhaps the collection and transportation of the debris would take more energy than what this would generate.

[pvaldes]

> Burning will return what the tree pulled out of the atmosphere, so it's already carbon neutral.

This is just an excuse to burn. There is not good CO2 molecules and bad CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. More CO2: bad. Less CO2: good

[Pfhreak]

I didn't say it was good. Just that it was not a net increase. Obviously better if we can sequester somehow.