• Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wood is more or less carbon neutral though, the carbon that is released by wood burning is the same carbon that the tree pulled out of the atmosphere to build the wood in the first place. The only extra emissions come from how the wood was gathered and prepared, so if they weren’t using diesel trucks to haul the wood and they weren’t using chainsaws to cut the trees down then yes, it would be carbon neutral.

    • LwL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If the result is deforestation it’s not really carbon neutral, that would require another tree to grow in its place. Otherwise oil would be carbon neutral too, since that once came from plants.

      The main difference is the sheer amount of energy we use honestly, if we covered all our current needs with wood we’d probably run out of trees faster than they could ever regrow. In that sense coal isn’t strictly worse, if we stayed on 17th century level energy consumptiom but used coal instead of wood, we wouldn’t have to worry about global warming either.