Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

st4n13l t1_j61lr1u wrote

Reply to comment by HungryLikeTheWolf99 in Energy consumption in the US from 1776-2014 by MCgamingMC

Unfortunately that's only true if all of the wood comes from trees that fall naturally or felled as part of forest maintenance, and even if that's true on your local scale, it's certainly not scalable.

11

HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_j61m2xa wrote

Yeah, that's what we do. We take standing dead trees, trees that have fallen within the last year, or trees that people are taking out anyway that wouldn't be used for anything.

And I'd never claim it's highly scalable, but if one has the ability, it's a heck of a lot better than just burning nattyG.

7

st4n13l t1_j61msgp wrote

Yeah I wasn't arguing with you. Just pointing it out for others that this isn't some simple solution we've overlooked. Absolutely agree that if it is an option it's better than fossil fuels.

5

crimeo t1_j621cen wrote

If you replant and cycle your logging, it's neutral too. Drive around the pacific northwest, you can visually see almost the full loop around a hill range where there are different strips in a row in varying levels of regrowth cycling around.

Only cutting and then just leaving it for pasture or waste or development is one way

1

vtTownie t1_j63moq2 wrote

Managed forests aren’t scalable? How tf you think we build houses?

1

st4n13l t1_j63psd0 wrote

It's not scalable as a carbon neutral practice

0