The man who claims huge amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil still refuses to accept burning wood can be carbon neutral. Your position is totally contradictory and hypocritical, Zokes. Read the following and follow your own advice to learn something. My advice to you is "il n'y a que des cons qui ne changent pas d'avis":
Take an iron mine spoil tip that is planted with trees as a reclamation and carbon sequestration project. If the planting and exploitation of the resulting woodland is done by hand whatever wood is burned will still be better than carbon neutral because however much wood from the man-made forest is burned carbon will still be being removed from the atmosphere and left as stumps/humous, and stored in the soil or wherever it ends up on being leeched from the soil so long as it isn't back in the atmosphere (see the paths in one of my earlier posts).
However, I'm still a sequestration skeptic; sequestration will never do more than scratch the surface of rising atmospheric CO levels. Emissions are orders of magnitude higher than what can be sequestered. Sequestration also irritates because it's a favourite of green washers. BP made ridiculous claims about using old North Sea oil fields to sequester carbon that were much vaunted by the petrolheads on this forum, the latest on that green washing:
If the big brains in here spent more time on their jobs and less on bicycle forums we may solve this problem.
I don't work, Wilburt, but put a lot of time and energy into a low-carbon lifestyle which includes recovering wood locally from tree felling and tree surgery. People who pay to have trees chopped down then have to pay to have the wood removed by big diesel guzzling machines. That's where I come in. I wander along with my electric chain saw and some extension cables, and set about turning the unwanted wood into firewood which I take away in my wheel barrow.
The man who claims huge amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil still refuses to accept burning wood can be carbon neutral.
That's because the first is a fact which I have backed up with scientific references, whilst the latter is not. We all accept that in moderation it's better than burning fossil fuels, but it is not carbon neutral, for all the reasons several of us have been at lengths to explain to you. Perhaps you'd be a better edukator if you were also better at being edukated.
sequestration will never do more than scratch the surface of rising atmospheric CO [sic] levels.
In the long term that's probably correct, but in the medium term it provides a means to buy us time to shift from burning things for energy. Burning biomass negates that opportunity.
Emissions are orders of magnitude higher than what can be sequestered.
Wrong, see [url= http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/517116/1/1-s2.0-S0016706117300095-main.pdf ]Minasny et al.[/url]
Take an iron mine spoil tip that is planted with trees as a reclamation and carbon sequestration project. If the planting and exploitation of the resulting woodland is done by hand whatever wood is burned will still be better than carbon neutral because however much wood from the man-made forest is burned carbon will still be being removed from the atmosphere and left as stumps/humous, and stored in the soil or wherever it ends up on being leeched from the soil so long as it isn't back in the atmosphere (see the paths in one of my earlier posts).
If you leave the trees there, even more of it's sequestered, and you get quite a nice forest too 💡
I have backed up with scientific references
Which you use out of context.
Mainasny et al. propose unrealisticaly high sequestration objectives and still claim only to sequester roughly a third. Now look in detail at how realististic sequestering 4 per mile is in the countries they quote.
Indonesia has a rapidly growing population, deforestatioon is running a pace, soil depletion is a major problem and these intelectuals of yours reckon they can turn that soil carbon depletion around and sequester 4 per mile. They're living in dreamland and ignoring the needs of 200 000 000 people. It may be a published scientific paper about what could be done but it won't be done and it's just intellectualisign that distracts from what really needs to be done - reduce carbon emissions.
There have been lots of scientific papers about sequestering carbon in oil fields. Worthy scientists getting paid fat saleries to write rigourous science that even if aplliciable will never be applied.
You know who our bigest adversaries were when trying to get sulphur scrubbers fitted to power staion chinneys at power stations - exceptionally well qualified and well paid scientists at the CEGB. Scientists who had sold their souls to the higest bidders and published misleading inappropriate science.
You need to have a more questionning mind, Zokes, and make your own judgement about the quality and realism of the science before linking it.
Northwind - member
That's not really true- trees aren't immortal. If you abandon a managed forest, the trees will still die and release their captured carbon (over a longer timescale, but still relatively short), and the trees in managed forestry tend to have fairly short mean lifespans (because of the species we plant, the way we plant them, and the shitty ground we tend to plant them in) Coal may return its carbon to the atmosphere over geological time, trees will do it in human time.
The point is that if a forest is left to self-manage, the growth, death and decay times are far longer, which, coupled with soil sequestration gives a very different proposition to harvesting for biomass. I made the point about coal as an extreme illustration, it wasn't a serious point.
Naturally occurring fires are common in naturally occurring forests.
You need to have a more questionning mind, Zokes, and make your own judgement about the quality and realism of the science before linking it.
As I happen to know several of the authors and have worked with them in a professional capacity, I'm quite happy with my interpretation of that paper. I too have reservations about just how feasible it will be, but it isn't impossible, and that much is clear.
You're yet again trying to argue in absolutes of black and white. If you wish to do so, lets apply that lens to how much use the lifestyle you virtue signal about is in the real world, eh?
Naturally occurring fires are common in naturally occurring forests.
And becoming more common thanks to the aforementioned climate change
If you wish to do so, lets apply that lens to how much use the lifestyle you virtue signal about is in the real world, eh?
A point I have made several times, which has been studiously ignored.
A point I have made several times, which has been studiously ignored.
Yeah, he’s good at that.
It’s a pity, this could have been a really good discussion. Instead it’s turned into a shit fight because rather than being content that we’re all more or less on the same page and accepting there’s more to do on all fronts, he’s decided that his lifestyle will save the planet, without much thought about how scaleable it actually is beyond his own fortunate personal circumstance.
I too have reservations about just how feasible it will be, but it isn't impossible, and that much is clear.
Go into detail then:
Ownership of the land
Increasing population
Increasingly intensive agriculture
increasing deforestation
Financial considerations
Practical considerations
4 per mile in Indonesia is nonsense and you know know it is so why try to defend the bad science of your colleagues. "but it isn't impossible that much is clear", the philosophy of doubt is a another thing scientists abuse. Just because it isn't impossible doesn't mean it's possible. And yet you are so certain carbon neutral wood burning isn't possible despite my concrete example of planting on mine waste. What kind of scientist are you, Zokes?
I published in peer review, The Journal of Environmental Management, I peer reviewed, and in all honesty scientists are some of the most dishonest, corrupt bunch of people I've ever come across. My best work was never published because it pointed the finger at the main financier of the project. However, paliative work that adressed the symptoms rather than the cause got published, but only because I glossed over some things. And that was despite working for an organisation on the side of right and good. The scientists working for the corporates or university people working for (financed by) the corporates were too often bare-faced liars.
It’s a pity, this could have been a really good discussion. Instead it’s turned into a shit fight
Go back and note the insults and slights, Zokes, you're well ahead
he’s decided that his lifestyle will save the planet, without much thought about how scaleable it actually is beyond his own fortunate personal circumstance.
It's highly scaleable and a lot more realistic and sequestering 4 per mile per year in Indonesia. I'll go as far as to say that it is [b]the[/b] solution. You just need to convince billions of people instead of which scientists sold out to the oil lobby undermine any attempt to convince people that personally investing in a low-carbon lifestyle is about as constructive as you can get.
And yet you are so certain carbon neutral wood burning isn't possible despite my concrete example of planting on mine waste.
The mine would require rehab anyway. You have to compare back to BAU, not a hypothetical worst case scenario.
What kind of scientist are you, Zokes?
One who can add up, it seems.
As for your whataboutery regarding the science profession, you really come across as just as unhinged as the climate denialists. By your own admission you had a very small exposure to academic research, and now spend your time not doing that any more. Perhaps you don’t know as much about it as you think you do.
You just need to convince billions of people
So not remotely the solution then.
By the way, please don’t ever try to advocate for the environment. If you do so in the manner you’ve made your failed point on here, the first thing anyone who you speak to is likely to do is go out and buy a big V8 or book a flight to Hawaii.
It's highly scaleable
Please tell us how.
You want a civil debate, Zokes/
Avoid the gratuitious pathetic insult such as
you really come across as just as unhinged as the climate denialists.
Now you're just being childish.
Avoid the gratuitous insult fallowed by factual inaccuracy, you could have the grace to acknowlege you were wrong, retract and apologise:
Sorry, now you're really just talking bollocks. Soil is the largest terrestrial pool of C.
Avoid telling someone who demonstrates great understanding to shut up because you don't have counter arguments:
Just accept that you don't know quite as much about this as at least two others on this thread, shut up,
And you have the cheek to accuse me of trolling.
You do realise he's bored and is baiting you?
Being a clever individual, it's much harder to see than the normal buffoons you get, but it's still bait.
It's why I've not responded earlier, and won't be in the future.
Ransos, highly scaleable yes, and you don't have to be the boss of a big British corporate green washer who buys land in Indonesian pulling the soil from under the feet of an Indonesian peasant farmer to try and achieve 4 per mile on an insignificant area to prove it's possible if you don't care if peasant farmers get displaced and starve to death as beggars in a big city.
Every UK home owner can do something, British houses are themric sieves so insulate. Roof wals, floor windows.
Heat using a wood burning stove if you have a renewable wood supply and local air pollution isn't an issue.
If you have south-facing roof fit PV and a solar water heater.
Use a heat pump hot water tank
Don't fly to Australia when you can take the train/bus to Nice if you really want a hot holiday.
Have CO2 per km as the main criteria when you choose your car if you really feel the need for your car (or more probably your partner does) because we're all walking, cycling bus riding, hitch-hiking people with no need for a private car, right?
Buy locally produced food and reduce meat consumption to what you feel you neeed to stay healthy (if you don't get on with being vegetarian)
Choose to live near you place of work even if that means a more modest house
Most people can do that and more, that's a huge scale.
In terms of politics vote green, because all of the above wil happen faster if there are incentives and disincentives. Vote for people who will:
have no tax on insulating materials and building materials from the point of production to the point of sale
Have punitive taxes on gas.
Have punitive taxes on electricity consumption above a level that can consistently be produced by renewable energy sources? 800 kWh/person/year at cost and painful taxes above.
Phase in punitive taxes on ICE cars in general with a programmed exponential increase in fuel tax over an 8 year period.
Phase out coal fired power stations.
Companies get taxed on their energy performance. Companies that don't meet ever tighter requirements are taxed at 95% on profits.
All that's required is the personal and political will. Because trying to impose soil sequestration on the developping world to compenstae for our own wasteful, pollutin ggreed isn't the answer.
And gettin back on topic, I have no problem with creating new deciduous forest in wilderness moorland and mountain areas as a source of bio fuel and simultaneously a minor contribution to carbon sequestration.
Join in Scienceofficer, if your science and objectivity is as good as your pseudo implies you've got nothing to fear.
Ransos, highly scaleable yes
Heat using a wood burning stove if you have a renewable wood supply and local air pollution isn't an issue.
You're not stupid, so I make Scienceofficer right.
So you've only picked one thing from my list that you don't consider highly scaleable, Ransos, I agree that wood burning isn't and shouldn't be a heat source for everybody hence my provisos.
I hope you realise and accept all the others are. Once houses are insulated to a reasonable standard the need for wood burning is very low. Reach passive house standards and a family of four living in a house may only use a wood burner a few times a year when it's exceptionally cold. Or simply use a heat pump because once the energy used by the housing stock has been divided by six and commercial use reduced then rewable electricity can realistically meet domestic demand (feel free to contest "divided by six" it's what I've ssen claimed on French and German programmes for new builds compared with current energy use in old building stock)
This discussion has gone down hill again
Well contribute and raise the standard rather than moaning, Neil, if not you're contributing to the "going downhill".
So you've only picked one thing from my list that you don't consider highly scaleable, Ransos, I agree that wood burning isn't and shouldn't be a heat source for everybody hence my provisos.
Yeah, it's only your source of heat, so scale isn't important. 🙄
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find some land and a private forest.
AD plants could be the way forward.
I'm convinced that more could be done to harvest the energy from agricultural waste too. Animal agriculture is a massive polluter, yes, but why not push efforts into collecting the methane and polluting gases and use those as alternatives to fossil fuels.
Well this thread went downhill quickly.
That’s slightly misleading though isn’t it? Firstly whilst power at the wrong time of day is not as useful as instant quick response power there is demand 24/7 (albeit variable) and some options for power storage exist (and as move to more electric vehicles this will increase).Secondly, the tide comes at different times around the coast, so whilst a single massive site doesn’t solve the problem, and any big source is going to suffer the same infrastructure challenge as wind you can generate tidal power somewhere on the uk coast 24/7.
Thirdly, it should be possible to generate tidal power through a barrier that floods a little like cruachan when the sun and moon decide, but is released when demand is there. There were mills a few hundred years ago that did this on a fairly small scale.
Of course there are genuine and NIMBY issues with large scale tidal relating to ecology, shipping etc. And it may be the dream of free energy doesn’t add up, but people used to say that about wind, and thought the danish were crazy for investing it it.
Indeed, there's significant tidal timing variation around the country, and the tide just doesn't flow for a few minutes, there's hours of exploitable flow in each direction, and it's completely predictable for hundreds of years.
Unfortunately our governments have little interest in developing tidal except the big ones that attract Chinese investment and make them rich. In making developing tidal developments like Meygen compete against established offshore wind in pricing they've scared off developers and people like Atlantis have already said they'll be looking to France etc. There's also lots of interest in tidal in places like Indonesia, I suspect we'll see the UK falling behind in tidal as more forward thinking countries take advantage (same old story). I've worked on a few UK tidal developments and it's a shame to see the industry moving so slowly when it's such a superb energy source.
Always worth keeping an eye on the tidal section of http://renews.biz/ if you're interested.
Every UK home owner can do something, British houses are themric sieves so insulate. Roof wals, floor windows.
New build so pretty goodHeat using a wood burning stove if you have a renewable wood supply and local air pollution isn't an issue.
Can’t afford it, sorryIf you have south-facing roof fit PV and a solar water heater.
Had it in the old house, but can’t afford it, sorry.Use a heat pump hot water tank
Probably can’t afford it.Don't fly to Australia when you can take the train/bus to Nice if you really want a hot holiday.
Valid, doesn’t work so well for Islands when time off is finite! Also, if you put all current flying CO2 emissions into trains and buses, I’d be interested to see the savings.Have CO2 per km as the main criteria when you choose your car if you really feel the need for your car (or more probably your partner does) because we're all walking, cycling bus riding, hitch-hiking people with no need for a private car, right?
Fuel economy is a big criterion, can’t afford full electric, cycle as much as practical. Buses and walking not practical. We’re not all retired!Buy locally produced food and reduce meat consumption to what you feel you neeed to stay healthy (if you don't get on with being vegetarian)
Tick!Choose to live near you place of work even if that means a more modest house
We work in opposite directions, suspect this is true of lots of people! Also, I move locations.Most people can do that and more, that's a huge scale.
For perspective, I’m a 40% taxpayer and she’s not too badly off either, and we’ve no kids. I take your point that taxation reforms could make this stuff cheaper, but I’m just making the point that I can’t afford it and I’m supposedly top 10%........
There are a lot of good points being made here and instead of arguing which is best there should be support for all. There is no silver bullet single solution, like edukator listed, there are lots of things that can help, including zokes ideas. Some are more appropriate for different people/places/situations. Recognition and support for ideas implemented in the right way and time and place, rather than criticism that it isn't the whole solution might be more effective at stepping us forward.
Burning wood can be very positive, burning waste products locally is positive. Growing wood for fuel could be done positively too, but won't always be the best use of time/money/space. Drax power station.... Good intentions but currently poorly implemented, definitely not doing as much good as claimed by them, possibly doing some good, possibly probably doing some harm too.
This topic is so difficult partly because politicians don't understand the science, scientists don't understand ALL the science - the planet's system is too complex, and scientists don't understand the politics. Even in this thread there's a certain amount of talking in different languages, and shouting at others doesn't help them to understand.
True that! The big picture is that you need trans-governmental incentivisation to make 9 billion people live sustainably. Individuals will always be too poor/busy/selfish/lazy to make the sacrifices required; a few altruistic individuals won’t make any measurable difference. Government needs to set the conditions whereby the cheap, easy choice for the individual is also the environmental one.
ransos - MemberThe point is that if a forest is left to self-manage, the growth, death and decay times are far longer,
Except for the parts that get turned into wood products- I think a lot of people in this thread have lost sight of that, wood used for biomass is largely a byproduct/coproduct of sawn wood.
More importantly, lifecycles make this part very tricky- essentially the management cycle of a forest is designed to get maximum usable volume. What this means is that the tree lives for its most productive growth period, when it's most healthy, while taking up the least possible space- a sitka's growth rate falls off after about 50 years frinstance. It's Logan's Run for trees.
The amount of carbon sequestered in a mature, managed block is way higher than in an equivalent sized area of wild forest- smaller, packed in, healthy trees are higher volume, you can fit about 4 healthy 50 year old sitka in the same area as 1 200 year old, the 200 year old will obviously be bigger but the volume will be less than the 4 younger trees. A 300 year old spruce is probably adding about 1m3 per year And in old variated growth, about 1/3d of the total standing volume won't be live wood, but decay, anyway.
But that's just a single point of time, and of course a mature wild forest has a fairly steady volume while a traditional forestry block is cyclical- plant, grow, peak, cut. I actually don't know which has the larger mean volume once you take into account the shortened lifecycle- it could easily go either way, it'd depend on the species and ground. In the UK I'd happily bet money that the forestry block has higher mean volume and higher mean carbon sequestration than an equivalent area of native species growing naturally, even before you consider the volume that goes into products. Elsewhere I don't know.
You could manage a forest from inception for peak sequestration, but I don't think that's ever really been considered, I'd be interested to see any real work that's been done on the subject- slow terraforming stuff. Heh, let's store the trees in salt caverns and slate mines, easier than pumping co2 into aquifiers and empty oilfields
(this is why you can't not think about growing trees, while discussing something that requires the growing of trees, otherwise you end up with great ideas like leaving sawmill coproducts in the tree.)
Except for the parts that get turned into wood products- I think a lot of people in this thread have lost sight of that, wood used for biomass is largely a byproduct/coproduct of sawn wood.
Up to a point, lord copper. It's largely taken from the wood not suitable for timber products, which often includes whole trees. In other words, material that would otherwise be left either to grown or to decompose very slowly.
I think we all agree that processing wastes and small offcuts are eminently suitable for burning.
The amount of carbon sequestered in a mature, managed block is way higher than in an equivalent sized area of wild forest- smaller, packed in, healthy trees are higher volume,
Sure, the problem comes when we burn it! And overlook the ecological impacts.
But governments are highly lobby sensitive. Even if MPs don't take bribes when in office they can look forward to being higly paid as a speaker when no longer in office. The lobby system in the EU is so well developed that the Commission consults lobby groups before the parliament; so as the Commission fixes the agenda environmental issues are in tha back seat while the car lobby is in the driving seat. Recent changes means the parliament can propose subjects for debate, lets hope the greens use this possibility wisely.
The glyco-phosphate and Bisphynol-A sagas are examples of where the Commission rides rough shod through the parliament so the chemical industry goes on poisoning us with impunity.
The collusion between the Commision and the motor industry means that E6 diesels are still highly polluting but still pass inadequate and unrealist tests. If people stil can't afford an electric car it's because the tax system still isn't providing enough incentive for people who would like to halve their driving related CO2 emissions. There's bonus-malus system in France but 96% of sales are still petrol and diesel which tells me those fuels and the vehicles they go in are still to cheap.
Exactly airtragic. I'm the same, I'll do what is easy/practical and affordable, but impinge on my lifestyle too much or my bank account too much and I won't. I do fear that we need to cut back on our lifestyle, and that isn't acceptable to the masses. Edukator suggests a lot of good stuff, a mix of punitive taxes and positive tax breaks and subsidies will help. If like to insulate my typical, poorly insulated 1930s house much more, but the pay back on external wall insulation is fairly long. The payback on 2 wood stoves and associated tools is a third the time. Little encouragement to do the insulation, but that surely is needed, not just in my house but many many millions of houses.
Some of the return periods on investments to save energy (and pollute less) are shorter than you might think. Especially as energy prices are set to rise above inflation and interest rates may be below inflation.
I expected my solar water heater to take at least 11 years to pay for itself, but it covers more of our hot water needs than expected and gas has increased in price far more than inflation so it's now paid for itself and still heating water:
[img] 
[/img]
(edit: that graph ends in 2013 and the current price is .077. The price is rising again after a dip below 2013 and 2017)
The gas price rise has meant that even the longest return period, the triple glazing, which I suspected wouldn't pay for itself in my lifetime (other than in peace and comfort) will pay for itself in under twenty years.
I insulated the walls on the inside as it was easier, cheaper, DIY practical and less likely to favour damp/condensation in the walls. As we were able to junk the radiators at the same time the loss of space wasn't significant.
You all know what your bills are, do some sums, consider rising energy prices and you might find things worth doing.
Have CO2 per km as the main criteria when you choose your car
So a remapped diesel then?
No, electric. And not unecessarily big or heavy.
After my contrubutions to petrol head threads over the years you'll know I'm anti-diesel for public health reasons. So persoanlly I'd rather see people in petrol hybrid cars if they live in urban areas and an electric isn't practical. If you will never drive anywhere air quality is an issue and there are no charge points then a diesel may be the best for you . It's the wood-burning stove consideration, will my stove/diesel contribute to a known public health issue. Do you live in the Western Isles, grumpysculler ❓
ransos - MemberSure, the problem comes when we burn it!
Well, that's the point with mean carbon sequestration. It's totally realistic, and I suspect highly likely in many UK cases, for a managed forest to serve as a carbon "damper" or temporary store, usefully, while also being harvested- since the temporary sequestration over the lifespan can still be higher than the permanent sequestration of an unmanaged area of timber, by holding more carbon at peak. Not burning it will still be better than burning it, but doing either could be better than doing nothing. Basically it's about the efficiency of your forest.
Soil sapping remains an issue of course, and here I guess I'm offpiste because I just don't give much of a shit about that, with the scottish forestry, because it's primarily in the crappiest of crappy ground, not really fit for anything other than growing trees on. It's the dregs that sheep farming didn't want, nuff said. So I don't see any need to preserve it at its current level of fertility- I see it more akin to mining. Ultimately if the land gets degraded to the point it can't even support crappy spruce at industrial levels, then we can seed or plant it with native species and let it grow "wild" as a very low efficiency carbon sink soil retainer and flood retarder, and build epic bike trails in it and not worry about the trees getting harvested, and put it in future harry potter remakes so that americans will come and visit, and it'll still be no less valuable than it was before it was turned into forestry.
Edukator: in response to the post at the top of this page, I’ve explained everything you raise already, including that whilst you’re correct that sedimentary rocks contain the largest amount of C on the planet, they aren’t part of the active biological cycle in any significant quantity, and thus are irrelevant to the point at hand unless your sole purpose is to try to get one over on another forum user
You still don’t get that if you burn a tree containing 20 t of C now, and plant one containing 0.0001 t in its place you have a net emission of nearly 20 t of C as CO2 that is only reabsorbed over the multi-decadal lifetime of that new sapling. The point being that the atmosphere, and climate as a result doesn’t care that you’re planting another tree, all it sees and responds to is the net emissions at that point in time.
I can’t really explain these two points any clearer I’m afraid.
I’ll now read what I hope are more constructive posts below.
[
Northwind has been posting more on forest management than I have but I'll go into how forest can be managed to both provide wood and continusously increase biomass. As you read don't forget Northwind's comment on the density of wood in managed woodland compared with abandonned woodland.
The model is mainly German but can be carried out anywhere. Woodland is allowed to mature (in Germany it's mainly historic woodland that hasn't been clear felled for centuries if ever). The forester picks trees that he can sell, chops them down and removes them - th eages and value I put in a previosu post. That creates a micro clearing which favours undergrowth and the natural development of sapplings, the strongest of the essence chosen are allowed to grow. They grow following the shaft of light, tall and staight, the risk of storm damage is low because they are protected, surrounded by solid tress of varying solidity.
In terms of CO2, every year al the tres will absorb CO2 but exploitation of the wood stock will reduce the total wood mass by roughly the same amount, some years more some years less. The amount of wood reamins more or less constant, humpous very slowly increases and erosion wilh carry some away which may end up in flood palin, delta or marine sediment.
Some of the wood extracted wil be used for building and furniture which is a stock untill it eventually gets recycled or burned. Depending on the use it may be another carbon store for a few hundred years.
So you have a forest that even though exploited never results in a net release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Even with clear felling methods which are not as good for habitat, water quality or the qualtiy of wood produced, if you manage a large enough area the biomass that accumulates each year roughly equals the biomass exploited. And in addition you can store some of the wood in housing and furniture (or even musical instuments) and some of the humous ends up in sediment - more because clear felling leads to more erosion of the soil profile.
So ther are never net emission if you manage properly, only a steady production of biomass even if you burn some of the wood extracted.
Visit Germany if you need proof, you'll find forest with a density of wood you won't even find in wild unmanaged woodland - Northwind is right.
So you have a forest that even though exploited never results in a net release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
All that makes sense to some extent, but it comes back to the scalability issue once more. Works for high value timber for construction/furniture, less so as an economic fuel that can be accessed by millions of people.
But when you extend it to any form of intensive management it falls down. When you burn the contents of that clear-felled coup, the C that will eventually end up in the one planted to replace it is still in the atmosphere. For the next few decades, you have a net emission until those replacements have grown. As a consequence, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than if you’d not harvested the wood for fuel.
Now back to the 4/1000 thing: I don’t think anyone is suggesting we turf off smallholders in developing nations so big business can store carbon in the soil. That’s nonsense. What is being suggested is that we work with the smallholders to improve their farming systems so they store more C whilst still farming.
zokes - Still not a customerYou still don’t get that if you burn a tree containing 20 t of C now, and plant one containing 0.0001 t in its place you have a net emission of nearly 20 t of C as CO2 that is only reabsorbed over the multi-decadal lifetime of that new sapling. The point being that the atmosphere, and climate as a result doesn’t care that you’re planting another tree, all it sees and responds to is the net emissions at that point in time.
I can’t really explain these two points any clearer I’m afraid.
You don't need to explain yourself any better- we can see the logical flaw very clearly and we've tried to explain it to you, you just keep repeating it without challenging your own thinking.
The tree you cut today is not replaced by the tree you plant today, as I said way back in my first post. It's replaced by another, slightly younger tree growing to take its place. Or to be more precise, it's replaced by all the other trees, growing a little bit. The only way it makes sense to think of it as new-for-old is if you ignore that trees grow. (or if you only had one tree)
The amount of carbon in a growing, managed forest isn't steady. So removing and burning a tree doesn't automatically cause a net increase of carbon in the atmosphere- that only happens if we remove more than is being added, ie if the amount of carbon released by the tree you burn is greater than the amount of carbon sequestered by growth.
This could be carbon positive, negative or neutral, depending entirely on circumstances- the size and rate of growth, and the rate of felling, and the fate of all of the wood (not just the part that gets burned)
You said "climate as a result doesn’t care that you’re planting another tree, all it sees and responds to is the net emissions at that point in time."- and that's absolutely correct, it's just that you've wrongly assumed there's a net emission. You said earlier in the thread "But I'm not thinking about growing trees" and that's still the case. Think about growing trees.
It's replaced by another, slightly younger tree growing to take its place. Or to be more precise, it's replaced by all the other trees, growing a little bit.
No, it’s not. They’re still there, regardless of whether you cut down and burn the other one or not, all growing a little bit.
If you have £10k in the bank and take £100 out, the remaining £9900 might eventually make up the difference in interest. If you put £10 in a high interest account to replace the original £100 you took out of your other account, you might get back to a net of £10k quicker, but the fact is you still have less than £10k in the bank from the moment you withdraw the money.
If you cut down and burn a tree, you have less carbon in trees and more carbon in the atmosphere until it’s replaced by another tree of the same C content. The fact there are other trees there all growing too is a side show, they would have grown regardless of the fate of the one you cut down.
You don’t need to think about growing trees to get this. If anything, that confuses the issue. Whenever you try to workout these things they always need to be compared to what would have happened had you not burned that tree. The answer is that it would still have been there storing carbon. So would the others. In burning it, you have one less tree, just as you have £100 less in your account in the analogy above. That’s fine assuming you don’t do too much of it, but if that £100 becomes £5000, you have a bit more of an issue. We’ve been borrowing against the environment for about 250 years. Our line of credit is coming to an end.
zokes - Still not a customerNo, it’s not. They’re still there, regardless of whether you cut down and burn the other one or not, all growing a little bit.
Yes. And? This is not a prompt for you to repeat yourself again, it's a prompt for you to think about what you've said means. A growing managed forest is carbon positive not carbon neutral. You can release carbon from it and still be net carbon positive or neutral. Or negative, [i]if[/i] you release too much.
(for clarity, I don't mean "a forest with some trees growing in it", I mean precisely a growing forest, one which is expanding its volume. A natural, wild forest will reach a rough equilibrium, a managed forest doesn't)
zokes - Still not a customerIf you have £10k in the bank and take £100 out, the remaining £9900 might eventually make up the difference in interest.
If you have £10000 in the bank, and it grows via interest by £100, then you take £100 out and burn it, you have £10000 in the bank- money neutral. You've missed the opportunity to add more money but you still have every penny you started with. If you leave the money unburnt you have £10100, money positive. If you burn £200, well then you're probably George Osborne
You say thinking about growing trees is confusing- and yes, it is. What you have to do is deal with that, rather than seeking out a simpler version that doesn't confuse you, at the expense of having it be false. Simple abstracts and metaphors are useful for thought experiments but you can't then demand the reality conforms to your metaphor. There are few things more pragmatic than a tree
You seem to be accusing me of not challenging my own thinking, then not doing so yourself.
If you burn a tree, that C becomes CO2 in the atmosphere. Unless you do something above and beyond what was already happening at that same point to sequester that C there and then (so that discounts existing trees), there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before you burned the tree.
If your money gree by interest and then you took some out and spent it, do you have more or less money than before you took the money out?
The rest of it is all noise. Stop thinking about growing trees.