WHAT'S THIS? Cutting Tress down in Netherlands to Build New Homes will TRAP and CONTAIN CO2!!!!

Seems to me that in my opine after reading this article, many environmentalists are disingenuous Carbon Slobs.

Switching to timber could solve Dutch housing shortage and be "a chance for our climate"

The Netherlands could build a million new homes from sustainably harvested local wood and save 100 megatons of carbon in the process, according to architect Marco Vermeulen. The Dutch architect has calculated that the country's 140,000 hectares of harvestable woodlands could provide enough timber for 22,000 houses each year. This means the country's entire shortfall of a million homes could be met within 45 years without using concrete or steel, which contribute to climate change.

Cut Timber to Sequester CO2

Upon reading this article I dumped this thread into the mud pit in lieu of the Green New Deal folks who in my opine are pure disingenuous Carbon Slobs on some global agenda. Agenda for what I don't know as it must me a secret at this point after reading this article. I was under the impression that the world needs more forests to absorb the CO2 after listening to the MSM along with CO2 puritans Gore, Sanders, AOC and some girl named Greta and some group called the United Nations.

I was aware back in 2007 that growing tress and plants will absorb CO2 as a sink as I was doing my own research on CO2. I also learned that CO2 was almost three times higher than today, when the dinosaurs were running around. Well, obviously today we don't have dinosaurs but be do have global obesity among all nations. I wondered out loud if obese people were CO2 carbon sinks themselves such that they become obese as they ingest mass quantities of hydrocarbons? That's as far as I will write about that. FYI when a greenhouse is growing young plants from seed they typically pump CO2 into the greenhouse so the plants grow quicker and healthier. Go ask a nursery on this. As they age all trees and plants then begin to out gas the CO2 held within them. I never heard the argument that if we were to cut the tree down and use the wood to build homes that said CO2 remains "trapped" and thus remains sequestered in the wood that can last in a home for 100's of years! Wow!

Along with today's technology that lumber could possibly last for 500 years and contain its own CO2. I don't know the expulsion rate of CO2 as an out gas but based on this article it seems extremely neutral.

What is further disturbing is why aren't we are told about what was written in this article as I feel that I try to keep up on all. See California and FIRES. So whats the agenda? The drive to Global population 500 million?

So what say you

If created soo much CO2 in my live I feel really guilty now.

a reply to: Waterglass

It would only work out well if tree saplings are replanted after cutting down the forest.

Forests are only temporary carbon scrubbers. Once the tree dies to rot in the forest it releases all the co2 it sequesterd so in a way he is right. If the lumber is treated and turned into homes it would sequester the carbon longer.

I was reading some article that said there used to be either an enzyme or bacteria a long time ago that turned all the brush and trees into coal once they died and were buried.

The builders' solution is still temporary because at some point those houses will be torn down and head to a trash dump where it rots and and not all of the tree is used to make lumber.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Agree with you on all but i never new that if that tree became lumber that said CO2 would be contained. I am all for the environment but disinformation is disinformation.

In the Southern USA they clear cut the forests to make wood pellets to sell to Europe. As such the CO2 is neutral. They do not reseed as they do not have to as the forest regenerates in about 30 years. I planted over 700 Loblolly pine tree seedling's on a hill for erosion control. I bought the seedlings from the state forestry. They grew to almost 30' in three years in the Georgia red clay.

But to use as lumber as a carbon sequester is news and a huge revelation to me. So when I see the crazy white men and women screaming in rage on TV. Well they can all go to hell as stupid is as stupid does. Sorry for my ignorance but I am also a product of years of MSM propaganda here in the good ole USA.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Grimpachi

Agree with you on all but i never new that if that tree became lumber that said CO2 would be contained. I am all for the environment but disinformation is disinformation.

But to use as lumber as a carbon sequester is news and a huge revelation to me. So when I see the crazy white men and women screaming in rage on TV. Well they can all go to hell as stupid is as stupid does. Sorry for my ignorance but I am also a product of years of MSM propaganda here in the good ole USA.

Trees are made of carbon so yes they are a carbon sink.

I suggested using more lumber as a way to increase carbon sequestering a few years ago on ATS. I'd be curious to see what the leftists would say now that their own side is suggesting it. The key is to keep the larger healthy trees standing as they take in more carbon, as a general rule, than their smaller brothers and sisters.

Lots of little steps, the same way we added to atmospheric carbon, is the best way to slow it down. That doesn't make a new market for carbon traders though so no politicians want that.

a reply to: Waterglass

Don't feel bad I only learned about it about 5 or so years ago. The rudimentary education I received growing up only covered a small amount of the equation.

a reply to: Waterglass

It's not just a matter of using the timber to build houses that store the CO2.
The other obvious benefit, that nobody here mentions, is that you save the material you would otherwise use if not for the wood.

The production of those materials, like concrete steel or polymers, also create quite a bit of CO2. Those are the real savings, not the bit of CO2 that is stored in the building timber

An interesting video from Veritasium during the TeamTrees thing explains that trees get 95% of their mass from absorbing CO2. What's also interesting is that satellite data from NASA shows that the Earth has been getting greener since 1982 due to what they call "carbon dioxide fertilization". So while everyone has been panicking about deforestation, in reality our C02 emissions have caused tree and plant growth, according to my conservative estimations based on the leaf surface area measured, it's equivalent to around 10 billion oak trees. If we were to achieve the fabled "100% green" goal, we would actually see a massive de-greening of the Earth due to lower levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, the trees and plants simply wouldn't have enough CO2 to sustain the high numbers.

Grimpachi is correct. Forest management is the key. It's not even necessary to replant if the forest is mature and only mature trees are cut, as a mature forest always contains young trees already trying to grow. The problem is most loggers, at least around here, are only interested in clear-cutting... that does not help with carbon dioxide because clear cutting produces a tremendous amount of brush which must then either be burned or left to rot.

That said, I don't consider "sinking carbon" to be an issue anyway, but I do consider forest management to be one. Lumber is a resource, and it is completely renewable if forests are managed properly. I am actually starting to use a fellow I know who has a sawmill to harvest my own trees, letting the woods here renew themselves (and acquiring some beautiful hardwood lumber in the process). I'm considering investing in a planer next, and possibly my own portable sawmill in the future. For now, I trade cedar trees (considered weed trees around here) for oak, poplar, hickory, hackberry, and elm lumber. And in the process, the forest remains healthy and vibrant and a continual source of wood, clean air, and beauty.

TheRedneck

You have to heat that new house if you build it. How is that going to equate to less carbon dioxide?

To be honest, The Netherlands made an EXTREME left turn. Even our PM who is a rightwinger (on paper) is going more and more to the left. All sorts of increased taxes and bringing down the max speed from 130 km/h to 100 km/h. Banning out all gas and other middleclass killing measures, all for the 'environment'. He and his government is ruining our country. I wish we had someone like Trump over here!

There is no sense to the policies here, it is just about being morally superior.

Wood is a great material. My question is the type of wood being used and the longevity of the construction.

Fast growing softwoods don't last and will require constant attention beyond a couple of decades if weather-facing. I doubt they are going to use oak, for example, which could last hundreds of years - I have oak timbers in my house that go back to 1735 and are still standing.

this is such a spurious and lacking 'gotcha' style point that you may as well wear a big ol sign around your neck that reads
"i know nothing of science, please ignore"

a reply to: continuousThunder

It never was about science, this is just political pandering.
Which perfectly illustrates where the issue lies with them. They seem to think this is some kind of game the other side is playing, to have their way and annoy the opposition. Some kind of scheme, create taxes and enrich themselves.

I said it lots of times before and I'll keep saying it. There will come a point when no amount of money is going to make this go away. This is not about you and not about us. This is about the future of mankind and it's abillity to call this planet home for future generations to come. Nevermind the solutions, it's obvious the problem needs to get bigger first. So be it

a reply to: Jubei42

They seem to think this is some kind of game the other side is playing, to have their way and annoy the opposition. Some kind of scheme, create taxes and enrich themselves.

Because it is.

I said it lots of times before and I'll keep saying it. There will come a point when no amount of money is going to make this go away.

Saying it won't make it true.

Nature does not care about your money. Nature does not care about taxes. One cannot go into a big box store and buy a magic "nature adjustment package." If one wishes to change nature it takes actual action, and if nature still decides it doesn't want to be changed, it still won't change.

There may well come a day when the earth becomes unsustainable for humans, but it won't occur because of carbon dioxide. It will occur because people thought money was more important than nature and became arrogant enough to try and bend nature to their will instead of working with it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Because it is.

The games people play have nothing to do with the issue at hand. At the end of the day it doesnt even matter what is causing it. If we fail to predict and adapt the changes to our only habitat, we're done period

Nature does not care about your money. Nature does not care about taxes. One cannot go into a big box store and buy a magic "nature adjustment package." If one wishes to change nature it takes actual action, and if nature still decides it doesn't want to be changed, it still won't change.

There may well come a day when the earth becomes unsustainable for humans, but it won't occur because of carbon dioxide. It will occur because people thought money was more important than nature and became arrogant enough to try and bend nature to their will instead of working with it.

TheRedneck

This is not about money, this is about awareness. We are at a critical point in our development. We are still very much depending on this planet and everything it provides, but on the other hand we are introducing global changes in key areas that regulate all the interconnecting systems and mechanics that took billions of years to balance out into a habitat that can provide.

You call it arrogance for wanting to change nature, I call it ignorant if you haven't noticed we've been changing things about nature for quite some time now. Only a fool would expect things to stay the same

This means the country's entire shortfall of a million homes could be met within 45 years without using concrete or steel, which contribute to climate change

But tree's and plants eat co2.

So now you can't using the one material on this planet that can withstand Hurricane gail force winds, and other natural enemies.

Mankind deserves to fade away if it doesn't smarten up.

The ideal building material is self healing concrete. It's bad ass.

I would expect any self-respecting client scientist to say that the solution is to stop building more houses and thereby getting rid of the problem altogether. Let the Netherlands be the first country to implement population control. Lead by example.

originally posted by: Goedhardt
I wish we had someone like Trump over here!

I don't think a guy like Trump would really work in the Netherlands. I really hope you were joking or willing to move...

Peace

a reply to: Jubei42

Yes to the concrete and yes in the production of steel and other materials.