the PDF is the task outline, I’ve done all the other stuff I just need from page 7 downwards done, which like I said before looks like this e.g. Harvested wood products
• Argument 1: HWP should be used instead of non HWP.
o Evidence 1: (Parobek et al. 2019) suggests that HWP instead of non-wood
products to construct houses has an advantage to climate change mitigation
over other HWPs as they are generally used longer and so they bond
• Argument 2: Different products of wood store the carbon for different periods of
o Evidence 2: (Zhang et al. 2018) – shows that sawnwood (35 years) and
wood-based panels (25 years) have a much higher half-life than products
such as paper (2 years)
• Argument 3: Using higher wood quality in HWP and only using it domestically is
the most effective harvesting method for HWP.
o Evidence 3: Parobek et al. (2019) found that when comparing different
harvesting methods, that creating less paper, using higher quality woods
and not shipping the product overall created a higher annual change in
• Argument 4: Carful choice of disposal method and recycling can improve CO2
o Evidence 4: (Zhang et al. 2018) there are two main emissions of carbon in
the lifecycle of HWP. These are the waste wood that is discarded during
the production of HWP, the disposal of these HWP products.
• Argument 5 (Linking): HWP’s are the best method of climate change mitigation
that can be undertaken in the urban environment
o Evidence 5: Other carbon sequestration strategies for the urban areas such
as urban vegetation has minimal any data to demonstrate effectiveness in
reducing GHG emissions. (Velasco et al. 2016)
and I want that done twice for my review