johnm wrote:When trees die they don't "release all that carbon". Trees absorb large quantities of carbon dioxide during their life to grow, they will also release some of that when they die and decay producing water and CO2 and compost.
Burning trees also releases very large quantities of CO2 which is why burning rain forest is a bad idea as the resulting savannah supports cattle and other creatures all of which are net greenhouse gas emitters, (CO2 and Methane in the main).
Sloppy use of language on my part. Not "all" obviously, but I feel you're looking for a hair to split or a pin to dance upon if that's all
that's worth commenting on. Farmers who rear animals on grass rather than grain might feel differently about the environmental value of their stock. My only useful point is that trees are not the magic bullet they are often cracked up to be, especially by politicians trying to outgun each other with insane planting schemes.
@matthew_w100 the input / output point relates to the long lifecycle of entire forests rather than an individual plant. So, deforestation, changing ground, rate of replenishment etc are all factors. I'll have a search to see if I can find the reference I took it from.
On the upside for my earthbound recreational interests, peat bogs store something like 8x the carbon that a rainforest does so there is real potential there for big wins in the UK. I'll see if I can find that reference too, otherwise I'll look sloppy again.
Status updates:Disco Tony
: Nothing from Disco-Tony - 06 Sep 2016
Sheffield City Airport: Boeing on the runway