Sure, as 'temporary' as the forests/grasslands themselves. So let them persist permanently. Where's Archived Message
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on October 6, 2019, 8:06 am, in reply to "Apologies to all, but I agree with Dr Gray. Forests are a temporary repository.."
the temporariness in that? As long as the Earth has the full complement of forests/grassland of which it's capable, with the thick soil layers that such naturally-living lands also create, then that's a large reservoir of air-sequestered carbon (with its greenhouse effect thus suppressed, by not being held as free CO2 gas in the atmosphere).This can go on indefinitely; and has, and will continue to do so as long as hom sap refrains from trashing it. There are more ways than just subduction to inactive atmospheric carbon. And how not? Mam G loves multi-channel redundancy and practices it habitually.(And yes, I agree with Jim Lovelock's notion that you can think of Gaia as a goddess; or alternatively as an entirely automatic natural system with no mind or purposive element in her (its?) overall being at all; take your preference! It's pretty obvious to me which interpretation matches most closely the observed realities; especially since the advent of quantum mechanics: Big Mind, aka 'god', rules all.) Note too, that forests and grasslands, so long as humankind let them operate in the natural way that they will spontaneously when not prevented by forest clearance and tillage, are actually more productive of food and other goods for humankind (sic,sic,sic!) than areas subjected to industagri (such as the idiot-fascist usurper Bolsonaro wants to inflict on the Amazon in the service of short-term gangster profit). The techie-eega-beeva 'Green Revolution' is largely a mirage. Natural management systems are simply more productive, more harmonising rather than destructive, and also, critically enough at this juncture, they're far, far less energy-demanding, driven as they are solely by sun energy. Hardly surprising, since Mam Gaia has been tuning her systems for maximum energy efficiency for several billion years. Norman is just wrong; based as mack points out on the error-generating reductive way of thinking, when the matter should be viewed from a whole-systems perspective; which is what I'm sketching, however hamfistedly, in this thread. This must be the first time we've disagreed and I've flatly contradicted you David! Cheers bro!
|
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
- 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
|
|