Yes. The trees you use to build actually store carbon while they’re still the building. However, as buildings aren’t actively taken out of the ecosystem, their carbon will eventually be set free as well, because they burn down or are left to rot or something, so these buildings aren’t net negative unless you later take care of the raw materials and take them out of the cycle. If you don’t, it’s roughly a zero sum game (roughly because your work usually emits done CO2 as well, so it’s not completely 0).
I’m reasonably sure that a timber building is probably still better than a concrete one, for the same capabilities, when total environmental impact is measured.
Burning trees is CO2 neutral because trees are part of the active carbon cycle (you’re not digging it up from deep underground to burn).
Yes. The trees you use to build actually store carbon while they’re still the building. However, as buildings aren’t actively taken out of the ecosystem, their carbon will eventually be set free as well, because they burn down or are left to rot or something, so these buildings aren’t net negative unless you later take care of the raw materials and take them out of the cycle. If you don’t, it’s roughly a zero sum game (roughly because your work usually emits done CO2 as well, so it’s not completely 0).
👍
I’m reasonably sure that a timber building is probably still better than a concrete one, for the same capabilities, when total environmental impact is measured.
Of course it is. By miles. I didn’t mean to suggest anything else.
I think we’re vigorously agreeing :-)