this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
109 points (97.4% liked)

World News

49866 readers
2091 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Forests in general shouldn't be seen as a way to "sequester" carbon, trees are just temporary storage for it. They're nice to have, of course, and serve many benefits. But not that one.

[–] SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

By that logic literally anything other than blasting it into space is temporary. Mountains weather, oceans turn over, even the planet as a whole has a cycle that involves melting the subducted sea floor and releasing gasses.

Sure it’s temporary, but if we have enough temporary storage to offset the (drastically reduced, I should hope) emissions, and continue to replace what is used/burned/etc, does it really matter if it doesn’t last forever?

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Tbf FaceDeer is kind of right in that there are other forms of vegetation that work better, but they are terrain/location specific, ie: prairie grasses, the kind the buffalo lived off of, have root systems that can be 8-10 ft deep and do in fact live forever.

Where FaceDeer is incorrect is that trees themselves are not carbon sinks. Their root systems are what hold the carbon.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Roots rot too. Otherwise the ground underneath forests would have hundreds of meters of accumulated root mass built up over the millennia.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes they do. But they stay underground, and if the soil remains undisturbed the carbon stays trapped underground.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago

Decay turns carbon into carbon dioxide, a gas. Unless it's injected into deep geological structures it doesn't stay underground.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)