• Kecessa
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wood frame buildings are standing for hundreds of years, some of it might need to get replaced every now and then but if a couple of 2x4 last 70 years and it takes 50 to grow a tree that provides us with more than the number that needs to get replaced, it’s a net positive.

      • Kecessa
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What? You think we would reach a point where we don’t need all that wood anymore or where we only manage to grow what we need to replace?

        By the time that happens I’m pretty sure fusion will be our main mean of energy production and climate change will be a long forgotten issue.

        We’ve deforested about a third of the land that used to be forest 10 000 years ago, about 20% of the world’s habitable land!

        https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests

        We don’t replant about 5 million hectares every year!

        https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

        We’re trying to reinvent the wheel because we can’t see the solution that’s right in front of us.

        • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah and uhhh how much of that wood is still around. A lot of the carbon is in the atmosphere which is part of the problem.

          I don’t think you quite comprehend how much we’ve dug up. Reforestation isn’t a bad thing but it wouldn’t put a dent in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

          • Kecessa
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you missed the point entirely… Oh well, I tried.

            Ok bye!