[virtue3]

Interesting.

I looked up the world consumption of lumber in 2018 (pre-pandemic stuff). ~ 2.2billion cubic meters, a cubic meter of wood is ROUGHLY(really depends on species) 0.55 tons.

So If we doubled lumber production (which would help housing/construction and a lot of other sectors) wed at least offset the carbon created by roughly half.

Still wont come close to solving our CO2 emission issues but interesting because we could "get something" from the lumber vs just storing CO2.

Assuming 100% carbon capture into wood weight which is not realistic but I think it's a good thought exercise.

[abakker]

I'm not saying you are doing this, but don't confuse Lumber production and forest growth. Increasing lumber production decreases forest growth.

we need to increase forest capacity for lumber production first.

[shzhdbi09gv8ioi]

I don't think you understand how trees work as carbon sinks. You're destroying that potential by cutting them down.

[virtue3]

Trees actually carbon sink via growth aka creating wood. The CO2 they breathe in is turned mostly into growth / basic functioning.

So no, you are NOT destroying the potential. In fact, if they grow and die and rot they are going to essentially release all the CO2 they captured.

https://extension.psu.edu/how-forests-store-carbon

So converting mature trees into lumber is essentially locking out the carbon capture more dramatically, especially if used in long term uses like housing etc. Being turned into firewood would be drastically bad for CO2 capture.

What am I missing that makes you think I don't understand?

[partitioned]

Only if the tree rots. If you turn it into treated lumber and build a house with it…

[shzhdbi09gv8ioi]

No. A dead tree log does no longer bind any more carbon.