When an article lacks balance, it lacks credibility and therefore intellect.

There is far too much rhetoric to consider this as scientific inquiry, rather it should be considered a poorly informed opinion piece

Matthew, if you spend some time with a timber expert, someone who makes their living from it, not some well paid uni lecturer, they will tell you that threes, just like most living things have dominant, sub dominant and juveniles within their group.

Now, if you remove the dominant tree, the sub dominants compete to become the new dominant, resulting in excelerated growth and, excel stated carbon storage.

Timber harvesters do just that as there is little commercial value for small diameter t
Logs and, the costs of harvesting same often outweighs the financial gains.

Finally, most hardwood forests are harvested every twenty to fifty years, depending on spices and growth rates and, once the harvesters have moved on, the smaller trees experience a huge growth spurt, again resulting in increased carbon storage.

Everything is about balance and what woukd like to see is legislation that sees all now houses containg a certain % of timber, as that stores carbon fir as long as the building remains.

Storing carbon or dealing with it is where the solution lies, not reducing it to levels where jobs are threatened.

% of timber, as that stores carbon fir as long as the building remains.
rehctub,
excuse my ignorance but I'm wondering if the treated timber that is nowadays used would still absorb Carbon ? Isn't it a requirement now to only use treated timber ?

Indi, timber does not exhaib carbon once sawn, but it does store carbon, whether it be treated or not.

As a rough guide, carbon equates for approx 50% of the timbers weight so, if an average house were to contain 3m3 of timber, at say 1200kg per cube, it would store around 1.8 ton of carbon for as long as it remains.

Furthermore, trees only exhaub carbon when they are growing and, ode growing slows, towards the end of their life cycle, they exhaub less and prohibit sub dominant trees from maturing, resulting in reduced growth rates, meaning less carbon exhaubtion. I see not problem with harvesting timber so long as it is replaced, or allowed to replace natually.

At the end of th day, simply reducing carbon emissions will result is reducing jobs as well. We must come up with ways to store carbon and this is potentially one such way.

As for treated timber being exclusively used, I doubt it, but untreated must be from strength group 1 or 2.

We must come up with ways to store carbon and this is potentially one such way.
rehctub,
Yes but in my language that translates directly into reducing emissions full stop. Electricity is vital to modern society so cutting that would be a very ask. Motor Sport is one industry that could be curbed from 24 hour races to say 4 hours etc. Frivolous industry can be curbed as, by its nature it is well, frivolous. Some profits are more than just profits, they can be curbed too. If we do not collectively address the biggest problem in our society, Greed, we'll be dragging ourselves collectively into the pits. Greed can be reduced by early education in responsibility such as a non-military National Service. Australia hs been running wild for too long now in the area of responsibility, it's time to reign in this dreadful metality.