• someguy3@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      An individual old tree may, but a young forest captures more carbon. And that’s not even accounting for if/when the old tree burns anyway.

      • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        Love that facts get downvoted

        You just claim what you said is fact, then get all prissy about it.

        I’m sure that will get you fewer downvotes?

        You want to have a good faith discussion about this? It’s not a simple equation. All in all it’s usually better to NOT cut down old forests. You have to consider the whole ecosystem.

        Also, I’m sure Trump had our carbon emissions in mind when he rescinded that order, hm?

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          I’m not pissy, I love watching it. Y’all’s actions are your own, whatever they are. Good faith discussion starts in recognizing facts, not downvoting them. The whole ecosystem is better with a range of young and old forests. I didn’t comment on Trump, I commented on facts. I think logging, like every industry, has to be done properly.

    • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      From what i get from this article, this is technically true for one tree, but not for the forest, for which there is a peak in carbon capture at some point (when the canopy closes says the article), and then it can either stabilize either slowly decline. There are other huge advantages to keeping old forests intact though, especially regarding biodiversity.