Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by wredue | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

wredue

Now wait till the forests burn and instead of being a carbon sink, they become a carbon contributor.

Hi Canada!

View on HN

I think our peatlands are of considerably greater concern.

In Ireland we're burning ours, like a bunch of idiots.

The situation with Canadian forests is much worse. The Amazon accounts for 20% of the global carbon sink but the meters-thick layer of peat below Canadian forests is a third of all carbon stored (along with the peatland in Russia, which is also burning).

There’s enough carbon stored in that peat to double or triple the CO2 ppm which would be absolutely catastrophic to the planet.

Those trees are made of carbon that was already in the atmosphere, and they will release it back into it whenever they die in the next couple centuries anyway. Trees are basically irrelevant as carbon capture, unless they're cultivated to maturity and then buried underground.

They tie up carbon for 100+ years, they're hardly irrelevant

Depends on if you are a climatologist or a geologist.

They buy a little bit of time. That's it.

Nonsense, a region that is forested has a proportion of carbon locked up in biomass indefinitely. If that region is deforested and no longer has any carbon locked up in biomass that is unambiguously a net source of carbon.

It's not locked up, it's continuously flowing in and out of that ecosystem. It's only locked up when it gets buried and can't return back to the atmosphere (except through technology). There's any number of reasons why a forest could get disrupted and die out besides intentional deforestation.

Admittedly I haven't checked for sources, but I'm willing to bet that it's mostly man made these days, either direct deforestation or climate change.

I hate to break it to you but we need all the time we can get. Also a rotting tree doesn't completely turn into gas, some of the carbon (I think 30%?) goes into the soil.

If you’re in a sinking boat it is the amount of water inside the boat that you worry about, rather than the amount of water in which the boat is floating.

If you're in a sinking boat you should worry about how fast water is coming in, not about how much water is inside. Would you rather be carrying 10 tons of water without leaking, or 1 ton of water and taking in half a ton per minute?

That's not how it works, the time the carbon got stored has an effet on the climate, the same way that 1 euro tomorrow isn't the same as one euro today.

> trees are basically irrelevant as a carbon sink.

Some quick googling shows me that all flora on earth hold about 1000 gigatons of carbon, whereas we are releasing about 40 gigatons per year. Doesn’t seem irrelevant.

Meaning we would need to plant the entire current flora every 25 years just to break even. Sounds pretty close to irrelevant.

In fairly sure flora also plants itself if we leave it alone..

I'm fairly sure the total biomass of flora on Earth is fairly consistent across human time scales. It's not going to double in 25 years and then continue increasing at that same rate.

Do you have evidence for that? I in turn would assume that there's considerably less flora since the industrial revolution. If you ever kept a garden you know how fast weeds colonise bare soil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com