>>13165212>>13165199>>13165204>>13165192>>13165266The plants subtracted carbon from the atmosphere when they first grew, burning them is only returning the carbon. The only net increase of carbon is from fossil fuels that take untapped carbon in the ground and releases it into the atmosphere.
>black carbon is worse than CO2In regards to greenhouse gas effects, it only lasts in the atmosphere for a few days - a week, CO2 stays in the atmosphere.
>>13165231The differences is its a little partial rather than gas essentially, bad if you inhale it, but it remains in the atmosphere until it rains or snows then it returns in to the ground, or snow. (pic rel, although darker snow prob absorbs more heat a little)
If burning plants essentially takes the CO2 from the atmosphere (the plant absorbed to grow, plants are 50% carbon in weight) and then deposits it into the ground via the black carbon, then that would make burning plants carbon negative (After the black carbon has been returned into the earth after a few days, and even more so when the plants have grown back, extracting CO2 from the atmosphere) Obviously this isn't ideal if its going into snow glaciers or in your lungs, but if you're doing it in the middle of fucking nowhere, or capturing it.
Aboriginal people would deliberately burn eucalyptus forests down, that would quickly grow back, because all the nutrient will deposit in the soil (as ashes), and the lack of competition would be optimal for plant grown. There would a capacity for fast regrowth. Growth after such an ecological disruption is initially exponential (look up ecological succession). If we keep burning, regrowing forests, then aren't we removing CO2 from the atmosphere. We can afford to sacrifice a few forests.
