[javman]

Logging and converting the trees into lumber for building isn't free from a carbon perspective. A modern logging operation typically has several large diesel-powered heavy machines to cut down and move the trees. Then the logs are transported by diesel-powered semi trucks to a mill. The mill has many machines to move logs, cut them, and remove some moisture (kilns). Once they are cut, they are loaded onto more diesel powered trucks and delivered somewhere to sell. Back at the site of the cut, piles of slash (all of the branches) are left on the ground to rot, or sometimes piled up and burned. How long will the buildings made of wood last? Eventually they are bulldozed and hauled away to a landfill.

[Gustomaximus]

I considers the logging/lumber issue as initially I thought much better to mulch the trees to increase soil levels and replant but not sure how that would net out carbon wise.

But in the case of houses, you have these costs, but you also offsetting bricks and concrete etc. This also has a huge carbon production but without the offset. Also increasingly the logging and transport will be cleaner as EVs advance.

And yes buildings will be hauled to landfill, but that's timber in landfill and burying carbon for some time too.

Would be interesting for someone to run the numbers on actual impact.

[coagmano]

Yeah this makes it not viable from a pure sequestration point of view, but building your house from timber is still better on emissions than concrete etc