GardenBanter.co.uk - carbon sequestration

In article ,
writes:
Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:
Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
In article ,
writes:

I really have been trying to make a positive contribution. I explained
why the carbon sequestration issue is a fraud being perpetrated by
industrial nations.

Didn't you say we need to chop down old growth and replace with new
growth, if so, then as i said, it ignores the role of bio-diversity.

You were talking about carbon sequestration, not bio-diversity. If you
want to sequester carbon, you have to put it someplace that it won't
break down for centuries. Strangely enough, the only industrial carbon
sequestration project our society has undertaken is sanitary landfills.
All those disposable diapers will be down there for a very long time.

Evidently you don't appreciate the irony of the situation. The best way
to sequester carbon is to produce and preserve large quantities of wood
fiber products, while replacing decaying old growth with young, rapidly
growing trees. Since wood is a carbohydrate, you will need to produce
more than 1.6 trillion metric tons a year. Somewhere around 3 trillion
metric tons of wood a year should just about keep up with industrial
pollution. An acre of forest at the very peak of its growth curve might
sequester 0.5 metric ton of carbon per year. That is a deficit of about
3 orders of magnitude. All the earth's forests taken together sequester
about 0.1% of annual industrial carbon production. You may as well ****
in the ocean and call it a flood.

As for bio-diversity, successful agriculture depends on methodically
stamping out bio-diversity, clear down to the level of plant viruses and
endophytes. Every time you eat harvested food, you are subsidizing the
end of bio-diversity. In forestry, a closed canopy forest is one of the
least bio-diverse ecosystems in the woods. The understory of a closed
canopy forest is almost sterile compared to the riot of growth that
breaks out when the canopy is broken. Successful bio-diversity depends
on a variety of habitats.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing but make spooky statements
about what "mother nature" is going to do, when you don't have a clue.

I "know" intuitively as i'm NOT spiritually dead, rendered so by the
anti-spirituality device, hardcore reductionist science.

If you want to abandon reason and logic, I don't see that you have any
grounds to be offended. "Intuition" just relieves you of the
responsibility to actually study and think about the issues.
Superstition is the sign of a feeble intellect.

On a global scale, the fundamental problem facing humanity is
overpopulation. The human race has already exceeded the carrying
capacity of the planet, and all life systems, anywhere in the world, are
being steadily damaged by human actions. Undeveloped countries are, if
anything, more destructive than developed nations. If you like bio-
diversity, just take a look at the Indian subcontinent at the beginning
of the 20th century and at the end. The most biologically diverse area
on the planet was destroyed in a single century. The same thing is going
on in Central America and Indonesia right now. Borneo will be completely
deforested in this decade.

Perhaps the human race will never face the problem of overpopulation. It
may well be that all we can do is try to preserve some natural areas and
as many species as possible. The success of that process depends on a
political, cultural and social stability unprecedented in recent history.
The most likely outcome a century from now is a world populated by
several billion humans, several trillion rats, countless cockroaches, and
very little else.

The overall effect on liveability is uncertain. Loss of forest
transpiration will doubtless cut rainfall in several areas, but massive
irrigation projects have increased evaporation so much that downwind
precipitation has increased in other areas. Increased CO2 levels may
actually increase agricultural yields, while other forms of pollution
will injure all life forms, both marine and terrestrial.

Keep an eye on the human life span curve. When it starts to flatten, or
even decline, you know the problem is correcting itself.

Your thought processes are stuck somewhere in the paleolithic.

Hey wait up Larry, i called you the PRIMITIVE moron first, LOL.

As long as you're not a fossil fuel troll, we'll get along.

I am less tolerant.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc