“If you are concerned about offsetting greenhouse gas emissions and look at old forests from nothing more than a carbon perspective, the best thing to do is leave them alone,” said Beverly Law, professor of forest science at OSU”
Wrong, for all of the reasons I have outlined in detail in all of my posts on this subject. The net carbon uptake can be significantly increased with active management. Leaving it alone just because the net carbon uptake is still positive is a value judgment based on something other than a desire to get the maximum amount of carbon out of the atmosphere. This professor likes trees. That’s why he says leave it alone. If his sole criterion for coming up with a recommendation for old growth forests were to achieve maximum carbon uptake, and he truly disregarded the aesthetic values that I suspect are driving his above quote, he would have no choice but to agree with me.
The whole point of this exercise is to force people to be honest about the debate. It isn’t about minimizing greenhouse gases, it’s about aesthetics. As long as you claim the decision to not cut down trees is based on science you can’t win. Once you just admit that your value judgment is that there are certain things more important than reducing greenhouse gases, such as maintaining old growth forests for aesthetic reasons and other reaons unrelated the reduction of greenhouse gases, then the debate can be won or at least framed in the appropriate terms. Cmu just picked a losing fight by fighting the science. I can’t recall who it was but at least one person was willing to accept the science at face value and fight the aesthetics.
It’s like saying we can reduce greenhouse gases by shooting people in the face. Well… um, yes we can, that’s pretty much 100% scientifically valid, as there isn’t much carbon released into the atmosphere by a few grains of gunpowder, but it’s a bad idea for a lot of reasons totally unrelated to the climate debate. Like killing people is immoral, for example. Fighting the science is just a really bad chess move.
Actually, legion, there are discussions about adding various minerals to the sea that have a reaction to CO2, and in effect neutralize it by turning it into various carbonates.
Fizzy Sea! LOL!! [Not really, but it amused me to say it!]
I visited a friend this weekend who had a “make your own seltzer” kit. Came with the CO2 cartridges etc. Saves a lot of money at the grocery store but not sure about the carbon footprint.
Cobble, that sounds absolutely terrifying!!! I’ve never been to FL, and from the sounds of it, I never will! EEEEK
Dashing off now. Play nice kids!
“lounge lizard fall off her barstool on you”
Yes, I can imagine this would be very upsetting to you, DIBS. : P
I figure it’ll heal by itself. I avoid the doctor route…
cost me money cost the insurance money and can’t do anything for you anyway.
wasder, Is it the Soda Stream? A friend recommended it to us because we drink a lot of seltzer over here.
http://www.sodastreamusa.com/default.aspx
blowfish,
Sorry, I don’t have a rec for the bluestone labor. Maybe arkady does.
“If you are concerned about offsetting greenhouse gas emissions and look at old forests from nothing more than a carbon perspective, the best thing to do is leave them alone,” said Beverly Law, professor of forest science at OSU”
Wrong, for all of the reasons I have outlined in detail in all of my posts on this subject. The net carbon uptake can be significantly increased with active management. Leaving it alone just because the net carbon uptake is still positive is a value judgment based on something other than a desire to get the maximum amount of carbon out of the atmosphere. This professor likes trees. That’s why he says leave it alone. If his sole criterion for coming up with a recommendation for old growth forests were to achieve maximum carbon uptake, and he truly disregarded the aesthetic values that I suspect are driving his above quote, he would have no choice but to agree with me.
The whole point of this exercise is to force people to be honest about the debate. It isn’t about minimizing greenhouse gases, it’s about aesthetics. As long as you claim the decision to not cut down trees is based on science you can’t win. Once you just admit that your value judgment is that there are certain things more important than reducing greenhouse gases, such as maintaining old growth forests for aesthetic reasons and other reaons unrelated the reduction of greenhouse gases, then the debate can be won or at least framed in the appropriate terms. Cmu just picked a losing fight by fighting the science. I can’t recall who it was but at least one person was willing to accept the science at face value and fight the aesthetics.
It’s like saying we can reduce greenhouse gases by shooting people in the face. Well… um, yes we can, that’s pretty much 100% scientifically valid, as there isn’t much carbon released into the atmosphere by a few grains of gunpowder, but it’s a bad idea for a lot of reasons totally unrelated to the climate debate. Like killing people is immoral, for example. Fighting the science is just a really bad chess move.
Actually, legion, there are discussions about adding various minerals to the sea that have a reaction to CO2, and in effect neutralize it by turning it into various carbonates.
Fizzy Sea! LOL!! [Not really, but it amused me to say it!]
I visited a friend this weekend who had a “make your own seltzer” kit. Came with the CO2 cartridges etc. Saves a lot of money at the grocery store but not sure about the carbon footprint.
By cobblehiller on May 11, 2010 11:58 AM
Can you imagine, sitting on your patio and an 8 foot iguana falls down dead out of your tree?!
Could be worse, you could be in a bar and have a 5’7″ lounge lizard fall off her barstool on you.