A similar decision in the UK resulted in clear-cutting old growth forests to feed biomass-burning power plants, with all the associated increase in atmosphere CO2
You also get all the same health consequences as burning coal. This is not a good move
Well, they are not wrong. Trees are basically carbon neutral, they naturally release their carbon into the atmosphere when they die and rot, burning causes the same effect, just faster. Algae are the real carbon sinks, because when they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean. Coal isn’t because it is carbon that has been sequestered underground.
if trees are grown again, it’s technically correct. however, soot, dust and smell are the real problems.
Kind of; the decision to burn means that you end up with half a forest, instead of a whole forest, with the balance of the CO2 ending up in the atmosphere.
And it comes out of the atmosphere again when new trees grow, and they actually absorb more carbon when the trees are young and growing fast.
Ideally, yes, but new human cultivated forests are often less dense than old natural ones. They’d have to plant more and account for forest fires and pests, human cultivated forests are more susceptible for.
It can work out, but you can’t trust anybody to do it right.
Technically global warming is burning carbon from underground (coal, oil, ng) so wood is carbon that’s in its natural cycle but I still don’t like it. Unless you do it right there’s still too much PM. Trash depends on the source and since we have so much plastic it’s not.>
A meaningful chunk is also from land use changes, where people decide to clear a forest, turning the trees into CO2. A decision to burn wood at scale like this has exactly that effect: you end up with a forest in various stages of regrowth, instead of a bunch of mature forest which is sequestering carbon.
