@FrankCame - Thanks for sharing. Could you give some of your takeaways from that research?
From what I can gather, the cement carbonization sink is generally included in the fossil fuel emission accounting or excluded. Yes, the cement sink is increasing because of how much the world has produced, but is not a net-sink like the land or ocean.
It’s fair to say there’s a balance of both source and sink, but the point is it’s important how this is presented. Giving your child $10 to buy ice cream and them returning the change (in this case, $2.50 in pennies over years and without interest) is indeed a cost to your financial budget. Labeling as a sink gives the perception that it’s we should do more of it and prolongs the perception that we don’t have to change (the opposite of IPCC report’s ‘red alert’ message).
Yes, timber has its own challenges, but calling the article flawed because it doesn’t address the whole life-cycle of another material is a distraction. Agree, we also shouldn’t fill our buildings with unnecessary timber either, but if people want to learn more about that topic, they should go here: