Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
“Ronald Reagan’s infamous claim that “trees cause more pollution than automobiles” contained a grain of truth. In warm weather, trees release volatile chemicals that act as catalysts for smog. But the Gipper didn’t mention another point that’s even more likely to make nature lovers blanch. When it comes to fighting climate change, it’s more effective to treat forests like crops than like majestic monuments to nature.
Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released.
Last year, the Canadian government commissioned a study to determine the quantity of carbon sequestered by the country’s woodlands, which account for a tenth of global forests. It hoped to use the CO2-gathering power of 583 million acres of woods to offset its Kyoto Protocol-mandated responsibility to cut greenhouse gas emissions. No such luck. The report found that during many years, Canadian forests actually give up more carbon from decomposing wood than they lock down in new growth.
A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees and plant new ones. Lots of them. A few simple steps: Clear the oldest trees and then take out dead trunks and branches to prevent fires; landfill the scrap. Plant seedlings and harvest them as soon as their powers of carbon sequestration begin to flag, and use the wood to produce only high-quality durable goods like furniture and houses. It won’t make a glossy photo for the Sierra Club’s annual report, but it will take huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.
Key words being “A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon.”
55 years is different than ‘new growth’.
“Take the proposal that we cut down old trees in favor of new ones. First, I don’t buy the carbon accounting presented to advance this procrustean plan: Older trees can absorb CO2 for centuries after reaching maturity, while replanted forests can emit more CO2 than they sequester until the new trees are as much as 20 years old.
“But even if wired’s math were correct, this would still be a crap fix for climate change. Chopping down forests causes massive soil erosion and leads to desertification, making repeated tree plantings a dodgy prospect. As monocultures, tree farms are far more vulnerable to pest infestations. And batches of trees planted at the same time are more susceptible to wildfires, causing the carbon they’re supposed to be sequestering to go up in smoke.
Old-growth forests, coupled with a broad program of woodlands restoration and sustainable forestry, can provide not only climate relief and ecologically responsible wood and biomass harvests but a slew of other essential ecological services, from salmon habitats to flood prevention. It’s a heck of a lot more costly — in both money and emissions — to build massive dams and fish farms than to simply protect the forests we already have.
“DeadCatBounce, you’ve been PWNED and badly so!!!”
Being PWNED on this site is a badge of honor.
“Are you really a trader??”
If you followed my trades in real time on this site over the last few days, you know the answer. ie: short the market before the biggest one day peak to trough decline in history, and long Amgen.
Question for you: Are you really a heterosexual? Given your intense interest in male peeing habits and other major clues, its very hard to believe.
Putting me in a position of power would just be stupid. I would be miserable and would do a shitty job. Power means leadership. I am not a good leader. I am a good thinker and a good technician, but a lousy leader.
“Ronald Reagan’s infamous claim that “trees cause more pollution than automobiles” contained a grain of truth. In warm weather, trees release volatile chemicals that act as catalysts for smog. But the Gipper didn’t mention another point that’s even more likely to make nature lovers blanch. When it comes to fighting climate change, it’s more effective to treat forests like crops than like majestic monuments to nature.
Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released.
Last year, the Canadian government commissioned a study to determine the quantity of carbon sequestered by the country’s woodlands, which account for a tenth of global forests. It hoped to use the CO2-gathering power of 583 million acres of woods to offset its Kyoto Protocol-mandated responsibility to cut greenhouse gas emissions. No such luck. The report found that during many years, Canadian forests actually give up more carbon from decomposing wood than they lock down in new growth.
A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees and plant new ones. Lots of them. A few simple steps: Clear the oldest trees and then take out dead trunks and branches to prevent fires; landfill the scrap. Plant seedlings and harvest them as soon as their powers of carbon sequestration begin to flag, and use the wood to produce only high-quality durable goods like furniture and houses. It won’t make a glossy photo for the Sierra Club’s annual report, but it will take huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.
Read More http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_04forests#ixzz0neUkPNYg”
Key words being “A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon.”
55 years is different than ‘new growth’.
“Take the proposal that we cut down old trees in favor of new ones. First, I don’t buy the carbon accounting presented to advance this procrustean plan: Older trees can absorb CO2 for centuries after reaching maturity, while replanted forests can emit more CO2 than they sequester until the new trees are as much as 20 years old.
Read More http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/sb_carbon#ixzz0neVEuUF9”
“But even if wired’s math were correct, this would still be a crap fix for climate change. Chopping down forests causes massive soil erosion and leads to desertification, making repeated tree plantings a dodgy prospect. As monocultures, tree farms are far more vulnerable to pest infestations. And batches of trees planted at the same time are more susceptible to wildfires, causing the carbon they’re supposed to be sequestering to go up in smoke.
Old-growth forests, coupled with a broad program of woodlands restoration and sustainable forestry, can provide not only climate relief and ecologically responsible wood and biomass harvests but a slew of other essential ecological services, from salmon habitats to flood prevention. It’s a heck of a lot more costly — in both money and emissions — to build massive dams and fish farms than to simply protect the forests we already have.
Read More http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/sb_carbon#ixzz0neVZOJWC”
Forgive my ignorance,
but can someone tell me what
PWNed stands for?
I’m updating my Guide To Blogging.
And DeadCatBounce finally resorts to just calling me gay.
I think I can declare a pretty decisive victory.
I aint unloading my gold till it crosses over 2k
“DeadCatBounce, you’ve been PWNED and badly so!!!”
Being PWNED on this site is a badge of honor.
“Are you really a trader??”
If you followed my trades in real time on this site over the last few days, you know the answer. ie: short the market before the biggest one day peak to trough decline in history, and long Amgen.
Question for you: Are you really a heterosexual? Given your intense interest in male peeing habits and other major clues, its very hard to believe.
Putting me in a position of power would just be stupid. I would be miserable and would do a shitty job. Power means leadership. I am not a good leader. I am a good thinker and a good technician, but a lousy leader.
“Lord willing.”
Britain’s second Prime Minister?
I peed in Prospect Park the other night… behind a tree. I was walking my friend’s dog. She peed. Why can’t I?
slope — Ha!!