He said the claim of living carbon neutral was incorrect not immoral.

No, they were letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Calling out blatantly incorrect statements is not letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Electricity side effects is such a small percentage of the CO2 from a single person that neutralizing it and claiming carbon zero is ridiculous.

Why would planting trees not work?

It takes decades for those trees to grow to firewood size. In the meantime there will be carbon "in flight". Since the trees will be cut down and burned again, effectively replanting only reduces emissions by some fraction, dependent on the growth time. Burning wood, especially at your cabin, has a high emission rate, so an electric stove might be better, and fairly certainly is if powered by a solar panel.

Sure. But for some number of trees planted, you WILL eventually displace the carbon.

Trees die. Decomposing, or burning, gives off all the carbon they soaked up.

Cut the trees down, make paper out of it, print government regulations and statistics and reports on it, store these in a vault permanently. You have a carbon sink.

That sounds like it was a submission for shithackernewssays.

That comment just made my day :)

This is not true. Much carbon is left behind after burning or decomposition.

This can however take a decades or a few hundres years if not more. Around here they have found logs thousand of years old in the swamps.

> in the swamps

probably because theres not much O2 in the water compared to the atmosphere.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The original source for the carbon that humans emit is the atmosphere itself, so overall humans are carbon neutral. And since a human body itself contains carbon, until it has completely decomposed the body itself is carbon negative.

>kill oneself (not with fire)

lol...that's the funniest thing I've read all month.