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
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
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.