Carbon Sequestering

[rancherbill]

I believe we should all be doing something about reducing our effect on the world including Global Warming.

I was reading the news and an article reminded me of a question that I've had for a long time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...32180320070514

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home


Forrests are good. Forrests are wonderful. They are full of trees that take the CO2 out of the air and use it for their growth. This is good.

BUT......

The tree dies and rots, or is eaten by insects. Rotting produces greenhouse gases and insect farts have greenhouse gases, thus, in the big scale of things it seems to be a zero sum game. Trees grow and absorb CO2, and trees dies and release the carbon.

Doesn't it make more sense to cut down all the old growth trees, cut them into lumber, pressure treat them with preservative and build something that will last a very long time? That would take the carbon out of circulation.

or

Pay Brazilians to pick all the dead wood and seal it in an abandoned mine shaft.


OT - 2 Blondes

One blonde reads a newspaper headline that says TWO BRAZILIAN SOLIERS KILLED.
She turns to her friend and asks "How many is a Brazilian?"

[Geof]

Sequestering Carbon Dioxide

[rancherbill]

There seems to be a wide gap in opinion. What is the correct answer?

[Geof]

I think it is sloppy thinking and phrasing. An intact forest has stored a lot of Carbon but when the forest is mature, which is the case with the Boreal Forest there is no increase in the amount stored.

Consider yourself: As I point out you and everyone in the world, have stored Carbon while you where growing. Once you reach a constant weight you are no longer storing just passing it through; in as food out as CO2.

You actually have it (sort of) straight in your suggestion to turn old growth timber into something permanent and then replant. In fact in many respects your suggestion is more valid than the claim that intact mature forests continually store Carbon. But it has some pretty horrible drawbacks such as habitat destruction, not all the wood will be used permanently, it would flood the markets with lumber driving prices down and the baby trees that were planted would not store very much Carbon for the first several decades. Apart from the fact that the Boreal Forest may never regenerate if it is cut down because climate and weather in the North is no longer the same as it was hundreds or thousands of years ago when these forests became established. The big problem with forests is that what you see now is not necessarily what was there at the start. Some trees can grow in open ground such as Larches and Alders but many conifers need shade to grow. Therefore starting from nothing you have to go through a succession of tree types to get to the final continuing forest make-up.

[rancherbill]

You raise the point of habitat destruction from global warming This is media hysteria, exaggeration and deception.

The Mediterranean area used to be forested now it's desert.
Where I live there were glaciers within that last 10-20,000 years, now it's farm and ranch country.
etc, etc.

The Mediterranean area was not destroyed, it changed. The forest loving animals moved out and the desert loving animals moved in.

Change is inevitable. Any particular piece of habitat is going to change over time. The question is whether their is another piece of habitat available for those critters to go to. The spot that is vacated in turn will be just right for some other critter that is migrating.

There has to be habitat of all kinds everywhere set aside today to insure that species have locations for migration in the future.

A particular species may become locally extinct, however, somewhere else it will become abundant, as long as there is a somewhere else.

I believe global warming is happening and that human activity is accelerating the pace of change.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by rancherbill You raise the point of habitat destruction from global warming....

No I did not. Read what I wrote: I said that cutting down the forest and using it as you suggested destroys habitat

Originally Posted by rancherbill ..The Mediterranean area used to be forested now it's desert. The Mediterranean area was not destroyed, it changed. ....

What part of the Mediterranean area are you referring to? Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Egypt .....? Some areas around the Mediterranean changed naturally over tens of thousands of years. Some areas such as around Greece changed due to the influence of human activity, mostly tree cutting and agriculture. What some people call habitat destruction.


It is difficult to figure out what you are getting at.

You say:

"Doesn't it make more sense to cut down all the old growth trees, cut them into lumber, pressure treat them with preservative and build something that will last a very long time? That would take the carbon out of circulation."

Which I think involves habitat destruction for all the animals and plants that lived in the old growth forest.

The you say:

"There has to be habitat of all kinds everywhere set aside today to insure that species have locations for migration in the future.

So what are you in favor of, ripping down all the old growth and destroying habitat or keeping the old growth and maintaining habitat? You can't have both.