chand1986
2022-07-15 08:43:15
- #1
That is the time argument in accounting that I mean. If regrowth and burning bind CO2 at different speeds, the accounting argument is nonsense. It is understood with fossil fuels, but not with fresh wood!?You are forgetting something crucial. Yes, it has grown in a few years and absorbed CO2. However, over many millions of years. The gigantic amounts of fossil fuels that we recklessly burn today have bound CO2 from millions of years. They are trapped sunlight from millions of years. And we now release this solar energy and gigantic amounts of CO2 into the air within decades. Thus, the planned ice age is canceled and we can rejoice about climate change.
But no one planted accordingly beforehand. The start of the accounting is the first combustion, and from there applies what I wrote above, if replaced 1 to 1. Otherwise, you are right about moderation and balance, and of course wood is a heating alternative if you cannot afford anything else due to world politics. But it is as it is regarding CO2 emissions.Why should it release more CO2 if you only plant during the first 20 years until the harvesting maturity?
It will not happen on a global scale. Things like the 1.5°C goal will certainly be missed. I am a defeatist about that.Actually, this whole wood discussion is superfluous: We have to reach zero CO2 within the next 10 to 30 years (there are different levels of acceptance here...).