Re: I didn't say that growing forest is the best sequesterer of carbon.. Archived Message
Posted by dereklane on October 8, 2019, 3:14 pm, in reply to "I didn't say that growing forest is the best sequesterer of carbon.."
What's more the ploughing of the peat bogs in which they were planted would have released a huge amount of extra carbon and some methane... !" Yes, it would have. There is more than one way to Plant forest, and not all of them are good for the environment, just as there is more than one way to grow food, not all sustainable or good for the environment. That said, even commercial forestry could be both sustainable and provide net gain for the environment via carbon sequestration, pollution control, habitat forming and so on. It's not either or except when we insist on economic bottom lines for the process. (It would follow even there if we looked forward appropriately, which we do not). Cheers
|
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
|
|