• dynamic_generals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I was surprised to not see this until the very bottom. There’s usually a panel about it in a lot of the environment and conservation conferences I go to for work. Storing the carbon in tree trunks and the using that wood in to build the housing that’s required is a long term carbon sink.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          But when it decays you could replace it with more wood, and then if more housing is ever needed you pull more carbon out of the air to make the wood for that. Not that it’s the end all solution but actually replanting forests and increasing the amount of wood in structures, and replacing plastic furniture with wood, it all could help. Every lever matters

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Buildings made today really should last for a long friggin time. I really don’t see why any modern house ever needs to be torn down.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              We still have homes from a century ago. The ones built today should last wayyy beyond that. And century homes are being torn down not because of the wood, but because they are way too small. I have a really hard time thinking that modern homes are going to be seen as too small in 100 years. Likewise I think you’re out to lunch thinking modern homes are going to structurally fail.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                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.

                • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Survivorship bias from a hundred years ago. We build things a lot better now.

                  You think I’m arguing against the communal knowledge of every industry? I’m arguing with the communal knowledge of every industry. We have way more knowledge, have better materials, know how to build things better, and we do build things better than before. I don’t think we’re going to agree, so I’m out.

                  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    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.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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?