ᐅ About Passive Houses, Plastic Bags, and Styrofoam Cladding

Ok, understood. The fuel wood, including pellet heating, which is so popular in rural eco-friendly circles, is therefore not a real improvement compared to oil/gas.

Nordlys schrieb:
Ok, understood.

Fine.

Nordlys schrieb:
The fuel wood including pellet heating, which is so popular in rural eco communities, is therefore not a real improvement compared to oil/gas.

Oops! So you didn’t understand after all.

I feel confirmed, yet it still frustrates me: If people don’t discuss the same facts, meaning they don’t even base their arguments on the same situation,

Nordlys schrieb:
[...], instead of looking at what is and what follows from the current situation.

that approach is impossible.
What "is"? The situation you described with subtle irony (the second quote in this post) is precisely not the case. You misunderstood that, if you interpreted my words that way.

But still, that does not automatically mean your approach of "burning = okay if replanting" is generally correct.

And such a statement (very similar to what Tego12 wrote in #51) is not a moral judgment, but a logically consistent observation.

Just as a side note, I would like to add that natural habitats developed over centuries are not the same as fast-growing pine forests, which are regularly cleared and replanted. I don’t even want to start on the excavation pits for coal and so on.

I am confused. What I understand is: when I burn wood and then plant something again, I am borrowing CO2 for 80 years, which is too long to repay. Hmm. So: wood is not good.

Better not to burn anything at all. There is neither enough wood for heating nor for insulating everything.

There is no single solution. We are all individuals with different needs. What matters is that we keep our "footprint" as small as possible.
Electric cars powered by personal solar panels certainly don’t work for people who have to commute.
Public transport, if it is even available.
Passive houses – energy saving regulations.
Vegetarians – meat eaters.
Organic, local products – or just cheap from anywhere.
And so on.

It’s not just black and white. Online shopping is often criticized because of all the deliveries that have to be made. That may be true in areas where shops can be reached on foot. But not necessarily in rural areas.

In fact, everyone can adjust the factors they are able to without fundamentally changing themselves or their lifestyle.

Karsten, the issue is what happens to the overall balance (!) of all biomass use within a defined period. If this balance is zero, meaning as much regrows as is burned within that time, then it is neutral.

If people burn first and then plant, the world has to cope with an excess of CO2 for 50 to 100 years (the growth period of the tree) and fewer trees during that time. This is the time factor. Planting one new tree for every burned tree is not sufficient.

A forest from which only as much wood is harvested as can regrow overall between two harvests makes sense. But burning one tree and then planting one is not sustainable.

Time factor: If a typical tree takes 50 years to grow and you want to heat with wood, you need a small forest (!) that, after 50 years of harvesting by you, still contains the same biomass of wood as at the start.

Because of the time factor, burning one tree and planting one tree does not result in CO2 neutrality within a reasonable timeframe. It’s impossible.

And if timeframes didn’t matter, which is my point, then oil and coal would be fine again. Those are also products of natural cycles, just on a scale of millions of years.

I doubt that wood is so much better or more ecological as a fuel for these reasons. Even green advocates often say a lot of nonsense. Burning anything simply isn’t an ideal solution, no matter what.