I've seen this scientific fact go around for a while now, but to me it just doesn't pass the smell test. Intuitively, it makes no sense at all. Forests are large areas that literally live on processing CO2. That's the main process that is required for growth to occur. So you have all these trees that process CO2 and you are telling me that humans have managed to negate all these processes? I suspect they messed up the math or are it is simply grifting by some NGO that got paid to say something about CO2 so we can invest more in some renewable energy business.
A tree eats about twenty kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. But burning a tree releases about 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide. So if just 1% of a forest burns for any reason, that reverses the rest. And if it’s more than that, then the forest is emitting more carbon than it absorbs.
I've seen this scientific fact go around for a while now, but to me it just doesn't pass the smell test. Intuitively, it makes no sense at all. Forests are large areas that literally live on processing CO2. That's the main process that is required for growth to occur. So you have all these trees that process CO2 and you are telling me that humans have managed to negate all these processes? I suspect they messed up the math or are it is simply grifting by some NGO that got paid to say something about CO2 so we can invest more in some renewable energy business.
A tree eats about twenty kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. But burning a tree releases about 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide. So if just 1% of a forest burns for any reason, that reverses the rest. And if it’s more than that, then the forest is emitting more carbon than it absorbs.
I think the claim is that people are cutting the trees down and burning them faster than the trees are growing.
Absolutely this [is the claim].
Forests and bogs are massive carbon sinks; if the amount of cellulose within is decreasing, CO2 is being released (net).