Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Wouldn't it break down into methane instead though? I doubt that building buildings are carbon neutral, let alone a carbon sink.


Dried up wooden building material is pretty stable and a fairly common (even commercialized) suggestion for a carbon sink. If you let it rot/burn, then no, it is not a carbon sink.


Sure, but the way we build buildings, there's no way that's actually the case. Transport alone to the sawmill, then the lumber yard, then the job site might actually release more carbon than the tree is storing.

A 25 year old maple will sequester 400 pounds of co2 in it's lifetime. An average commuter car will emit that in 2 weeks. Hauling all that carbon out of the forest will likely emit far more than that.


> Transport alone to the sawmill, then the lumber yard, then the job site might actually release more carbon than the tree is storing.

If we're building the buildings anyway, we have to compare with alternative building materials. That is, how much more would transporting that lumber emit, compared to transporting for instance brick?


It's not going to be "anyway". Once you add incentive for wood you will also create incentive for building. Complex systems 101.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: