Re: A vital point Ian - and completely misunderstood.. Archived Message
Posted by Ian M on June 4, 2019, 8:15 pm, in reply to "Re: A vital point Ian - and completely misunderstood.."
Tomski said: 'the point I made that the Canadian oil and gas industry are contributing to the carbon-footprint not analysed in this article' - yes, I think that was a fair point too. Didn't mean that your post was misleading, but that Dahr's wording was. David said: 'If you really want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere the best action would be to fell old growth forest and either bury the charcoal from burning it for power, or use the timber in buildings' - for the record I would oppose this, even if it was effective, because of the ecological sensitivity and value of old-growth forests. They shouldn't be made to pay for our insanity IMO. Rhis' option of reinstating former coppice makes more sense for European woodlands that have a long history of that kind of management, but I think even here there needs to be set-aside (or zone 5 in permaculture parlance) where the land is left unmanaged. Thanks for the info on the situation in Oz, which sounds pretty crazy. I don't think that kind of carbon offsetting has ever lived up to its promises (which really amount to enabling the continuation of business-as-usual). I read an article that took a global view and concluded that: 'In case after case [...] carbon credits hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with. Ultimately, the polluters got a guilt-free pass to keep emitting CO₂, but the forest preservation that was supposed to balance the ledger either never came or didn’t last.' - https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/ Derek said: 'Even a 1/16" annual growth on a large tree compared to 10' growth in height on a sapling Amounts to a great deal more carbon sequestration.' - hmmm, you may have something there. Haven't looked at that question in much depth I'm afraid. It just made sense to me that new saplings in open ground will grow faster and put down more wood than in a shaded established forest where the canopy takes up most of the light. Happy to be proved wrong. Does the mycelial network have a role in carbon sequestration too, I wonder? CJ said: 'is there a way of minimising gas release in burning wood' - I think new fangled designs in rocket stoves burn a lot 'cleaner' by redirecting the gases for a second burn. Some produce biochar too, eg:
Rhis painted a nice picture of the future as always cheers, I
|
|