h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

One other thing the article could stress. If a tree falls in the forest, whether or not it makes a sound, it soon decomposes releasing its CO2 back to the atmosphere. In other words, it sends the same carbon to the air whether you drive somewhere or walk. Fossil fuels take from the ground and add to the air. Bio fuels make almost no net change.

That's an interesting point, but as the piece mentions there can be zero net carbon (CO2) or even negative net carbon if the wood is replanted. The carbon would be re-absorbed by the growing trees and in an odd way you could theoretically produce less carbon by driving. (Unless you hold your breath or don't increase your metabolic state with exercise.

I agree it would be better to walk, but personally living in a country that is over 3,000 miles wide, we do tend to drive now and then.

I think that the only way to get a negative net carbon would be to shoot it into space and hope it doesn't return. If you just replant, you're only pushing the bill to the bottom of the stack as the tree will die someday and send its CO2 back ito the air. Wait a minute... just as I'm typing this, it occurred to me another way to get negative net carbon. Heat the wood to vapourize the volatiles (which you can burn to get energy) then bury the resulting charcoal. Wood rots, charcoal doesn't. Please feel free to get the patent on this process but send me my two percent.

The charcoal isn't the concern, it's the carbon dioxide which is part of the global climate change problem. Burning the volatiles would still produce CO2 (and perhaps some polluting hydrocarbons).

First of all, consider that the article is mostly about waste wood, which before now was burned or allowed to decompose, both of which created carbon dioxide in the air without net benefit. The used portion (the unwasted part) of the tree in most cases locked most of that potential carbon dioxide inside for some time, as in as I said the wooden chair, paper, etc. (or if you prefer think of all the wooden houses out there).

If you replace that one tree with a replanted tree, the net carbon could then be negative since you are absorbing more CO2 than has been released. If you plant two trees for that one then you are extremely net carbon negative but one planting is still net negative, do you see? Another thing to consider (as was mentioned) is that newly planted seedlings absorb more CO2 than do mature trees so the carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) can be quickly reabsorbed.

Go ahead and patent it yourself, I would much rather have the patent for producing ethanol.

Only kidding about the patent. You can't patent charcoal. You're absolutely right about the pollution that burning wood can produce; it's one of the dirtiest things you can burn if you don't do it right. My point was that the charcoal represents that part of the carbon that the tree has taken from the atmosphere that you could sequester essentialy forever. Wooden houses and such still rot.

I was kidding as well, so far no one can patent (non-GMO) fermentation and distillation as well.

The carbon is considered sequestered in wood products since they are usually replaced once they degrade, starting the cycle all over again. The charcoal is a great idea but wood products represent more value added.

You're right again, but why not be greedy and do both?