Researchers at the World Resources Institute (WRI) discovered that wood consumption represent about one-tenth of the worlds yearly greenhouse gas emissions. This is less than electricity and heat generation but more than traveler automobiles. This is especially worrying as global demand for wood will increase by 54% in between 2010 and 2050.
” We do find that using wood to replace concrete and steel could have lower emissions under certain conditions, however theyre challenging to attain. And currently, the fast-growing plantations that could provide wood in these conditions are currently required to fulfill other growing demands for wood,” the scientists wrote in a post.
This has actually led numerous to begin looking at wood as a cleaner option. Wood looks good on paper however it may not be such an ideal choice.
Image credits: PxFuel.
Cement and steel are essential ingredients of buildings, high-rise buildings, and bridges but they have a big impact on the world. Production of cement develops 2.3 billion tons of CO2 per year, while iron and steel release 2.6 billion heaps. If the cement market were a nation, it would be the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, behind only the U.S. and China.
Not a climate-friendly option
Researchers at the World Resources Institute (WRI) found that wood usage accounts for about one-tenth of the worlds annual greenhouse gas emissions. Bark, which accounts for 10-15% of the wood eliminated from the forest, is normally burned. The researchers surveyed papers claiming that the usage of wood is carbon neutral as long as a forest is harvested sustainably– indicating that the quantity of wood removed by a years harvest matches the forest development in that duration. In their study, they suggested restricting how much wood is logged and encouraging more efficient uses of wood, such as burning less for heat and cooking. They also for us to look for more appealing options for concrete and steel for the building and construction sector rather of thinking just of relying on wood.
Bark, which represents 10-15% of the wood gotten rid of from the forest, is typically burned. Likewise, when logs are changed into lumber, much of the wood ends up being chips or sawdust, which is burned. If the forests were kept standing, these commercial processes from the forestry sector emit carbon dioxide that would be prevented.
As they grow, trees change carbon in the air into carbohydrates, removing it from the atmosphere and saving it. The carbon would stay saved for years if a whole tree were moved into a structure. Only a small portion of a tree makes it into a structure, with a 3rd left behind in the forest as roots and branches, the group stated.
In the research study, the researchers likewise discovered that utilizing wood in building will probably increase carbon emissions relative to using concrete and steel. They estimate a 54% boost in demand for wood by mid-century, which would result in clearing three million square miles of woodland– a location about the exact same size as the continental United States.
The researchers surveyed documents claiming that the use of wood is carbon neutral as long as a forest is gathered sustainably– meaning that the amount of wood removed by a years harvest matches the forest development in that duration. This isnt accurate, they stated. Collecting increases carbon even if forests dont reduce year to year.
The resulting emissions are likely to be in between 3.5 and 4.2 billion lots of CO2 each year, they stated, which has to do with the exact same emissions caused by deforestation for farming. “We forecast wood used for lumber, paper and all functions aside from fuel will be 90% greater in 2050 than in 2010,” the scientists wrote in their article.
Nevertheless, theres still a method forward. In their research study, they recommended limiting just how much wood is logged and encouraging more effective usages of wood, such as burning less for heat and cooking. They also for us to look for more appealing options for concrete and steel for the building sector rather of thinking just of counting on wood.
“Logically, if forests would grow and soak up more carbon if some parts were not harvested for wood, then harvesting and just maintaining pre-existing carbon stocks reduces the carbon the forest stores relative to a no-harvest situation,” the group wrote, comparting this with a savings account thats left alone to grow and not spent.
The report is available here.
