this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
15 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

3624 readers
461 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No memes/pics of text

Post news related to the United States.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
simsymbiote@midwest.social
Type1@midwest.social
exposingfash@midwest.social
15
Minnesota state regulators rule that burning trash and wood can be considered 'carbon-free' (www.mprnews.org)
submitted 4 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/usa@midwest.social
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A similar decision in the UK resulted in clear-cutting old growth forests to feed biomass-burning power plants, with all the associated increase in atmosphere CO2

You also get all the same health consequences as burning coal. This is not a good move

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Kind of; the decision to burn means that you end up with half a forest, instead of a whole forest, with the balance of the CO2 ending up in the atmosphere.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

And it comes out of the atmosphere again when new trees grow, and they actually absorb more carbon when the trees are young and growing fast.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Ideally, yes, but new human cultivated forests are often less dense than old natural ones. They'd have to plant more and account for forest fires and pests, human cultivated forests are more susceptible for.

It can work out, but you can't trust anybody to do it right.