Re: Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us* Archived Message
Posted by scrabb on October 5, 2019, 5:50 pm, in reply to "Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us*"
It's a slightly more complex picture than Norm paints, No doubt it is, mack, and you seem well clued up on the subject (unlike me, a layperson). But is anything Norman Gray writes fundamentally wrong or incorrect? His basic point, as I understand it, is that just planting trees (and thus capturing carbon in their growth) is only a temporary solution -- if that -- because at some point their store of carbon will be released back into the atmosphere via the processes he describes. And in some instances within a very short time frame, eg, natural death and decay, forest fires, etc. If his thesis is flawed because he's in IT and not ecology, tell us why. You haven't made a case for this.
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- Why Planting Trees Won't Save the Planet - scrabb October 5, 2019, 2:25 pm
- Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us* - mack October 5, 2019, 5:09 pm
- Re: Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us* - scrabb October 5, 2019, 5:50 pm
- Old, wrong argument. And it says nothing about the sheep. [Sheep? Yes really!] - - Rhisiart Gwilym October 5, 2019, 5:47 pm
- Um, its a steady state even without burying ... - Shyaku October 5, 2019, 7:49 pm
- Apologies to all, but I agree with Dr Gray. Forests are a temporary repository.. - David Macilwain October 6, 2019, 2:07 am
|
|