• wolfyvegan@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    That was basically the impression that I got. Depending on the wheres and hows, growing wood as fuel can degrade the ecosystem and make it more difficult to continue to grow it there, but that’s more a question of “sustainability” of a particular practice than the renewability of the resource itself. The problems with burning wood for fuel are many:

    • Air pollution from wood smoke increases the incidence of respiratory issues…
    • Continually cutting young trees for wood reduces the total carbon storage of the forest
    • Large-scale cutting of wild trees for their wood disturbs potentially fragile ecosystems and can accelerate local/regional climate change…
    • Monoculture farming of trees for wood risks incubating pathogens (Dutch elm disease comes to mind), locally extirpating symbiotic plants/fungi/microbes and displacing animals that depend on other species of trees…
    • As @[email protected] mentioned, using wood combustion to meet present energy requirements would likely not be feasible due to the rate of consumption relative to the rate of renewal, not to mention the amount of land required…

    Whatever the problem, “we can just cut down more trees” is not the solution. There is enough deforested land in the world, and letting native forests grow back is one of the simplest and most effective ways to stabilise the climate. Forests are worth so much more than their wood.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Depending on the wheres and hows, growing wood as fuel can degrade the ecosystem and make it more difficult to continue to grow it there, but that’s more a question of “sustainability” of a particular practice than the renewability of the resource itself.

      You also need to rotate crops or you slowly reduce yield to nothing over time. Is farm-grown food not renewable? 🤪

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Some have made this argument. Certainly agriculture as its currently practiced depletes the earth’s productive capacity. Does that make it not renewable? Depends on how you define this word.

    • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I wonder if ag waste or help is a better idea. that should be carbon neutral while also providing power during still wind nights

      • wolfyvegan@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        In the transition to more sustainable agriculture, I think that there could be a place for burning biomass on the local level. For example, some sugar cane plantations use the fibre left over after juicing as biofuel for the evaporation process. I imagine that using coconut fibre for energy production would also work (to power machinery for processing oil and so forth).

        But in a sustainable agricultural system (i.e. agroforestry and tree-based systems) there wouldn’t be “waste” in the first place; all organic material would be recycled back into the land in order to maintain soil fertility, just like what happens in a forest (minus the small amount lost to natural erosion processes and migrating animals and such). The ultimate goal of sustainable agriculture must be keeping the organic matter in (or on top of) the soil and in living tissues. Otherwise, the system will require inputs from outside in order to replenish fertility, which in turn will require transportation, well-organised distribution networks, humans or machines working to produce the additional agriculture inputs… all of which also consumes energy, which requires more biomass, and around and around we go.