|
| ▲ | unsnap_biceps 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Climate change is a lot of different things. For the statement that the count matters and a "tree is a tree", Carbon sequestration? A giant redwood stores more carbon than a fir. Healthy ecosystems? Different trees fit into different roles in a healthy forest. The loss of biodiversity? Once a forest dies, a new forest somewhere else doesn't bring back the lost biodiversity. In theory, Carbon sequestration is the closest to "a tree is a tree", you can plant large amounts of fast growing trees can capture more carbon over time, but that's specifying the later tree, which then matters. |
| |
| ▲ | card_zero 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why did you mention ecosystems and biodiversity? Is the idea that those store more carbon, too, or was it just gratuitous? Edit after downvote: but why though? It looks like conflation of climate change with the entirety of environmentalism. That is a misleading thing to do. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | Retric 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No, a 3 foot tall sapling and a 300+ foot tall monster are both one tree but have very different impacts on the climate. Fast growth commercial forests have high density because the individual trees are relatively small with a vastly smaller amount of root mass. |
| |
|
| ▲ | kolinko 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If I remember correctly, the youngest trees convert the most co2 (makes sense, they grow the fastest). |
| |
| ▲ | Retric 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not on a per tree basis. Young forests sequester more carbon per year because you aren’t losing old trees, however sustainable harvesting changes the dynamics here. IE a 50k year old natural forest is very close to carbon neutral, but you can harvest wood from an old forest and change the equation as you don’t need to let dead limbs or trees rot. Unfortunately when you cut down an old forest and convert it into a young one the old forests root mass rots thus releasing a great deal of stored carbon. | | |
|
