[Gravityloss]

Trees can grow over a century and stay up for centuries. Large old trees over here have scars from multiple survived forest firest etc.

Cutting down a 50 year old tree and putting it to a building instead of letting it grow is not an obvious carbon sink to me. The branches might be used for energy nowadays, but the bark and roots will release CO2 etc. The new sapling will grow very slowly (kg carbon per year) for the first 15 years.

[s8s8discourse]

Some trees can grow over a century. Some can't. Some trees growth top out by 50 years and then grow incredibly slowly (sequestering carbon at a much slower rate). Some grow for 300 years and sequester carbon at a constant rate. Which is why it's called woodland _management_.

"Having survived multiple forest fires" says a lot to me. Surviving a forest fire still invokes a huge release of otherwise captured carbon for no gain. Harvesting trees for timber means the bulk of the tree sequesters carbon into the structure, and the waste byproduct can be utilised to provide energy for the process.

With the correct tooling and processes, it's as close to carbon neutral as you can get.

[jdhn]

>Surviving a forest fire still invokes a huge release of otherwise captured carbon for no gain

The cycle of life for some trees involves forest fires, so I wouldn't write off forest fires as having "no gain".

[Gravityloss]

Sure. Willows grow fast and are short lived. Typically you don't make timber out of willow either, though you can use it in building, it's a different method (and might be great).

My examples were of typical local forests here, which are long and slow growth by majority.

I know there are a lot of people with vested interest in selling logging as CO2 negative, and I see the idea promoted all the time.

[Ironlikebike]

Letting a tree grow to complete maturity is a gamble.

Many of the US's classic native tree species are under incredible stress (or nearly wiped out) due to the rapid spread of parasites and disease, e.g., oak wilt, emerald ash borer, Dutch elm disease, American chestnut blight, Beech bark disease, et al. Many large stands will never reach maturity/old-age. Most American hardwoods only have a maximum lifespan of 250 - 300 years.

In a stand of mature trees, only the healthiest tree specimens should remain, as they will be the most resistant to disease and parasites.

Public forests managers are using something called "pre-emptive salvage", i.e., if a parasite has breached an area extensively, they're going to log off those stands while the wood can be salvaged into products (other than firewood).

> The new sapling will grow very slowly (kg carbon per year) for the first 15 years.

The rate of growth is really a function of access to light and water (and nutrients) [mostly light]. Some trees (like sugar maple) will grow slowly, nearly dormant, in the understory of a mature forest, and explode with growth when a column of light opens up due to the death of a mature neighboring tree.

Some trees (Redwood) grow incredibly quickly, reaching 6+ feet diameter in 100 years. Other trees only regenerate when clear cut, and have short lifespans (Aspen at 70ish years).

[midoridensha]

>Some trees (like sugar maple) will grow slowly, nearly dormant, in the understory of a mature forest, and explode with growth when a column of light opens up due to the death of a mature neighboring tree.

There is unrest in the forest There is trouble with the trees For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas

[Gravityloss]

I agree.

Clear cutting is the dominant forestry method here. Everything else was actually illegal only a short while ago. One can personally sample by eye the wood piles one sees on forest roads, or on wood trucks. In general, the material is quite small. There is very little forest in the whole country that has trees that are over 100 years old, and it's not because of forest fires.

My family owns forest and some of that was felled 60 years ago. The trees are quite small for clear cutting. The plan is to remove some of them, to make the others grow more. The proposed standard alternative (that most neighbors are doing), clear cutting it all and planting saplings - would that really be carbon negative? The trees in a way have the most growth potential right now.