mspohr
Well-Known Member
Heathrow third runway ruled illegal over climate change
Heathrow third runway ruled illegal over climate change
Heathrow third runway ruled illegal over climate change
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
ladysbff
Member
Definitely. Lots of questions re: sustainability and actual, measurable improvements but my thought is that cellulose-based biofuel and lignin-based chemicals could be a stepping stone to something even more sustainable, as birch is at least more "renewable" than oil.
Similar line of questioning with mass timber:
As Mass Timber Takes Off, How Green Is This New Building Material?
Although perhaps part of this issue:
The forest products industry is already the largest source of CO2 emissions in Oregon because of fuel burned by logging equipment and hauling trucks, the burning of wood, and the decomposition of trees after they are cut.
...could be solved with a Tesla Semi Logging Apparatus
(And the implementation of CO2-capturing composting methods.)
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Although perhaps part of this issue:
The forest products industry is already the largest source of CO2 emissions in Oregon because of fuel burned by logging equipment and hauling trucks, the burning of wood, and the decomposition of trees after they are cut.
...could be solved with a Tesla Semi Logging Apparatus
It still likely has a negative carbon footprint if you count the sequestration of carbon in the timber. Rough back of the napkin math (20 y/o tree)(13lb/yr) = 260lbs / 20lbs/gal = ~13 gallons of fuel per tree. If you're burning >13 gallons of diesel/gas to cutdown and transport a tree you're probably doing it wrong.
But this also feeds back into the IMHO 'silly' planting tree initiative. Forests are not good at reducing CO2 emissions. The Earths climate history is evidence of that. CO2 has bounced between ~180 and 280 with the ~100ppm delta due to changes in Ocean temperature (cold water can hold more gas in solution). The interglacial CO2 concentration is ~stable at 280ppm despite a planet covered in forests because forests are part of the carbon CYCLE. Emphasis on the word 'CYCLE'.
If we want to use trees to SEQUESTER carbon and actually reduce CO2 ppm we need to remove the tree from the CYCLE. More tree farms and harvesting the timber for building materials is a great way to do that. Terrible for habitat. Not 'great' but not 'terrible' for climate. I really wish people would stop conflating the two. Habitat restoration really... really doesn't do a whole lot for climate but tree farms can do some... a little more than habitat restoration anyway.
Biochar that is made in a way that renders it highly recalcitrant continues to have at least some promise as a small potential for carbon sink. An organization with which I’m associated is currently evaluating taking a large amount of wood waste from a national tree service and converting it to biochar for agriculture.
The main issues, of course, are scalability and economic demand.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yep.... lots of options. Preferably something that has an economic value so it's not just the sunk cost of sequestering carbon.
It's frustrating that there's this absurd notion that we can plant a Trillion trees or whatever and now our work is done. Um... no... if your goal is sequestering carbon then in ~20 - 30 years you need to cut down those trillion trees and find a good place to 'store' them so they don't decompose THEN plant ANOTHER ~Trillion trees...
UNLESS your goal is habitat restoration (which IMO is even better... it's just NOT a climate solution)
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone is saying that we can just plant trees and then we don't have to stop burning fossil fuels. (Well, maybe the Republican climate deniers)
Mature forests hold 300 to 600 tons of CO2 per hectare. Converting the land we have stripped of trees to grow corn and soy to feed animals would be a significant carbon sink.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting that. My point is that even just as part of a sequestration program you can't simply plant trees. They need to be harvested.
Yes. A Mature forest HOLDS ~300-600 tons of carbon per hectare. And that's it. It doesn't keep taking more. If you want to use that land to sequester more carbon than just 300 - 600 tons you need to harvest the trees and plant more.
My point is that if you want to use trees as part of a sequestration program planting them is less than half the equation. The other half is being overlooked or ignored.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
What's wrong with just letting a mature forest just keep its carbon? That's the way the world was when CO2 was 280 and before we cleared millions of acres for farming.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Nothing. It's just not going to reduce atmospheric CO2. It's great for habitat but it's not going to reduce CO2. If you want to reduce CO2 you need the land to keep taking MORE carbon. The only way to do that is to harvest grown trees and plant more.
CO2 didn't jump up over 280 because of a lack of trees. It was a surplus of carbon. >95% of the carbon we've liberated has been liberated from fools fuel not from clearing forests.
It would be interesting to see a study on that. There are fewer acres of forest today but the carbon held in cellulose might actually be HIGHER than ~200 years ago. Some forest were replaced with more forest which was harvested and planted again (Tree Farms). That timber was used to build homes. The carbon in that timber is now sequestered for decades or centuries. I wouldn't be surprised if the net effect is very close to 0 or negative.
Last edited:
Nice article on CBS News about 10 climate change myths:
10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says
10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says
Swampgator
Active Member
Oh, OK. Opinion piece by a CBS meteorologist. Want me to post a counter from Joe Bastardi?
The more I study this climate alarmist movement, the more I see the telltale signs of pure propaganda, and this is what should set off alarms for thinking people.
https://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Formation-Attitudes-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394718747
Norbert
TSLA will win
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
There is no propaganda in the basic physics of CO2 and CH4 molecules.
Norbert
TSLA will win
If anything is pure propaganda, then it is this very post.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Converting farm land to forest takes up CO2.
Deforestation from farming released CO2. It's time to put it back.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
For ~20 - 30 years. Then it 'equalizes' and effectively stops. Once it has the 300 - 600 tons of CO2 per hectare that's it. That's a rounding error compared to what we've added. Even using 150% of land you can plant trees on.
It's not a continual process. That's my point.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Examining the Viability of Planting Trees to Help Mitigate Climate Change – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Jean-Francois Bastin of ETH-Zurich in Switzerland, used direct measurements of forest cover around the world to create a model for estimating Earth’s forest restoration potential. They found Earth’s ecosystems could support another 900 million hectares (2.2 billion acres) of forests, 25 percent more forested area than we have now. By planting more than a half trillion trees, the authors say, we could capture about 205 gigatons of carbon (a gigaton is 1 billion metric tons), reducing atmospheric carbon by about 25 percent. That’s enough to negate about 20 years of human-produced carbon emissions at the current rate, or about half of all carbon emitted by humans since 1960.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Wired had a good writeup addressing (tearing apart) that 'study';
Trying to Plant a Trillion Trees Won't Solve Anything
The emphasis needs to be on keeping the carbon out of the biosphere. I agree with re-forestation but FOR HABITAT RESTORATION leave climate change out of it. It expends too much moral capital. We have an entire industry whose primary purpose is extracting carbon from the biosphere and locking it away in timber.... they don't need our help.
Here's an opposing study;
The limits to global‐warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal
This tree planting nonsense is doing more harm than good IMO. I heard a quote from Jane Goodall today where she said that when people ask what they can do she says 'Plant a tree'; ...... Just about anything else is more effective than 'Planting a tree'
Swapping to a LED Light bulb = Planting 12 Trees
1 Solar Panel = Planting 50 Trees
Recycling 1kg (60 Al cans)/yr = Planting 2 trees
We need to stop simplifying this to the point of irrelevance. Quit fools fuel, quit fools fuel, quit fools fuel. That involves a little work but 'Planing a tree' ain't gonna cut it.
Telling someone they need to Electrify Everything, Use solar or wind energy, stop flying and generally reduce their addiction to fools fuel to as close to ZERO as possible isn't as pithy or 'easy' as 'Plant a tree' but real solutions are like that.......... enough with squandering our VERY limited moral capital of greenwashing.
I guess people like things to keep things simple like 'Plant a Tree' so here's a simple check list they should complete before they can start planting trees.
- No longer using Gasoline, Diesel, Propane or Natural Gas for ANYTHING.
- Home is exporting more energy annually than it imports.
Last edited:
Swampgator
Active Member
I guess you don't know too much about how propaganda works. Things like "the science is settled" and "denier" and "basic physics" are straight propaganda intended to squelch individual thought. And I'm sure you use those terms often because you are in it's grip.
I hope one day you can free your mind.
Similar threads
