- "Oh, I see what you mean by carbon-neutral. You mean it draws in CO2 from the air and releases the same back. I suppose that's true, but it doesn't really matter. Some other plant would draw it in and perhaps not release it back as quickly."
Well, yeah, any plant not be used by us would retain it longer, but when it decomposes, would give that CO2 back again, with a tad bit being tied up as humus. Longer term would be trees. Even they eventually give it back unless we do something creative like bury them in the ocean. Which is precisely what the Japanese were doing with Cal. redwoods at one point, although not to save CO2. Other than that, it will eventually get back to the atmosphere; fire burning wooden homes, , whatever.
"The net result of burning hydrocarbons is that there is still a concentration of CO2 in the air."
Well, yeah, but there is no additional load of CO2. Whereas burning fossil fuels releases an additional CO2 load which has been stored for a number of years. |
