this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
614 points (93.4% liked)

Nature Enthusiasts

795 readers
42 users here now

For all media, news and discussion focusing on nature!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

1-No advertising or spam.

2-No harrassment of any kind.

3-No illegal or NSFW or gore content.

founded 1 year ago
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] traches@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

An individual tree is neutral, but a forest is carbon negative as long as it exists.

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Untrue.
Just letting a forest grow wild is carbon neutral. The soil reaches a point of saturation. Eventually the dead trees get eaten by detritivores, releasing the captured carbon back into the air.
Keeping it sequestered long term requires burying it deep - the trees would need to be cut down and transported to where bacteria, fungus, and so on can't eat them.

[–] traches@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago
  • forest does not exist. Carbon is in atmosphere
  • forest grows, carbon is bound up in whatever lives in the forest
  • forest reaches steady state, carbon emitted by decomposition is balanced out by new growth

It’s net negative as long as it exists. What I said is true.