Not to mention unless we curb populations, that land will be needed for housing or food eventually. You can only go up so efficiently, and can’t rely on natural lighting with vertical farming.

Just make it your kids problem, sure that’s worked so far.

Uhh no, a forest doesn’t need to grow in size to create more co2, don’t forget all the other organisms that get attracted and offset the size. As it grows so does the organisms it attracts, it will always reach an equilibrium, if it grows, more organisms come and consume the “extra” which is no longer extra.

Its not as simple as everyone try’s to make it to try and make it work, which is literally why scientists have started debunking it and trying to stop all of these carb offset scam forests.

Sorry,

You should really look at how building see constructed a century ago (full dimensional lumber) vs modern homes (OSB and TJIs).

Things aren’t built stronger, but they are built better since they are built more efficiently…… They are two wholefully different things.

Survivorship bias, yes some last, most do not.

I’m not saying they’re going to fail, that’s why they have a life span that they last before they require replacement, or you could find an engineer to continually sign off every x years to deem it safe.

There codes, laws and regulations for a reason, I guess you could argue against the communal knowledge of every industry if you want. But houses built nowadays aren’t overbuilt like they used to be, that’s just how code have adopted to be as efficient as possible, instead of here, wood aplenty. More wood also requires a stronger foundation since it weighs more and requires more support. So it’s all snowballing in that regard. You can’t just put a 2x8 wall on foundation meant for 2x4, that requires double the size of foundation, just like that.

Just delays it more, it does eventually decay. I think the only solution I’ve come across that I haven’t seen the math against, would be to use it for rockets and eject the co2 essentially. But could that be carbon positive, I would love to know, but at the same time, we only just found metal particles in the atmosphere that are linked from space craft and re-entry.

So we’ve already done irreversible damage with rocket launches… so what don’t we know next?

You can use chemicals to preserve the wood, but there’s environmental issues with that, it also increases the cost, it’s not safe to inhale while cutting, requires post treatment, etc.

Yes they should last 3-5 decades and some could last a century, just like some existing wood buildings have. But modern homes are weird, they are meant for efficiency over being “structurally sound”. By that I mean they’ve figured out essentially the bare minimum needed to build and have the right safety margins. So yeah build with 2x8s, they’ll last longer than 2x4s, but it’s also not environmentally “conscious” at the same time. So rock hard place.

Sure it just makes it someone else’s problem, wood like almost all other materials has a finite period where it’s safe to use. Eventually all of it will decay and become co2 again.

It’s only temporary storage, wood, like almost all other materials has an expected life expectancy. Some will last, but most will decay and require replacement.

All solutions that involve plants are temporary, it’s just delaying it for further generations, doesn’t solve anything.

Burying it does what? It still decays and releases the co2 eventually. All you would be doing is making it future generations problem, like what we’ve always been doing, so maybe we need to do so thing different…?

Do you not think that’s been thought of and deemed not viable?

And what do you think happen to those offspring? Eventually it reaches an equilibrium where it produces as much as it scrubs, and eventually as it inevitably does it creates more than it scrubs.

Yes the scientist have thought of this and figured out that it’s carb neutral….

It reaches an equilibrium where it’s producing as much as much as its scrubbing at some point though.

And as it dies off it will produce more than it can scrub. All its doing is delaying the issue for someone else to deal with.

Almost every plant is carbon neutral in its life cycle, it’s a great sentiment, but it doesn’t work in the end.

Yes temporary, making it a future generations problem… because that’s worked out pretty well so far for our previous generations….

But trees naturally die, they can’t last infinitely, that’s a non existent scenario.

Even if it’s cut down and made into housing, most of it eventually decays (25-30 years usually).

It just doesn’t work in the end.

So it turns out that trees are actually carbon neutral, and aren’t carbon sinks like previously assumed.

The tree does store co2 in a sense, but as much co2 is also produced by the tree during its life cycle, it’s leafs are eaten by bugs, the leaves that fall to the ground decompose and also provide feed to microorganisms.

Now once the tree is dead, it also decomposes releasing co2 as well as providing food for bugs and organisms that all turn it to co2 as well.

Nature is wonderful, but they were completely wrong about trees scrubbing co2 from the atmosphere.

Insurance companies aren’t known to just spend money for no reason, it’s adding nucleation points, with less nucleation points the hail can build up larger before it break out of the storm cloud.

Sure they can’t prove it’s doing anything, but more nucleation points can’t make things worse and they know more nucleation points mean smaller potential hail.

It’s usually politics at play or environmentalists screaming about chemicals in the clouds that are the hurdles for something like this.

It’s interesting that they don’t talk about seeding the clouds at all.

Where I live they (the insurance companies pay for it) seed the clouds with silver iodide to create more nucleation points for the hail. This will increase the amount of hail, but decreases to total possible size.