[Terrapreta] Fwd: Fwd: Global Carbon Cycle

[lou gold]

Hi Duane,

OK, I read the submission. It in no way answers the assertion that more
carbon is released into the atmosphere than is sequestered in construction.
AND, whatever is  "sequestered"  in construction was  already sequestered in
the tree  -- no gain there  but an enormous loss in the release of carbon
previously
previously in its forest sink. New growth in plantations does not offset it,
especially since they are soon cut again in short rotations largely for
paper products and short lived products from sawdust and wood chips.

The submission sounds very much like the voice of industrial forestry.

lou

>
>
> http://www.computare.org/Fora%20Input.htm   down the page at  "February
> 21, 2005 - Brief on the Role of Forests in Canada's Greenhouse Gas
> Inventory"
>
>
>
> Duane
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:
> terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of *lou gold
> *Sent:* June 5, 2007 9:47 PM
> *To:* Kevin Chisholm
> *Cc:* Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Fwd: Fwd: Global Carbon Cycle
>
>
>
>
> Hello Again,
>
> I have to admit that I haven't understood all aspects of these system so
> please let me off the hook of defending them all. I want to focus on just
> one:
>
>
>
> Consider a "mature" forest. By definition, a "mature" forest has 0
> Annual Increment... there is no net gain or loss of biomass... the
> forest mass lost by dying trees is made up for by new growth from
> younger trees. If the trees are cut and used for building, then the
> carbon content of the wood is sequestered in a building, and new space
> is freed up for growth of new trees to take Carbon out of the
> atmosphere. A mature forest does nothing to alleviate the Greenhouse
> Effect, and as far as I can see, saving Mature Forests is a blatant
> Carbon Credit Scam.
>
>
> It works this way. 20% of Brazil's carbon emissions is smoke from
> deforestation. Then there is the added emissions of whatever is released
> from the denuded soil. Then there is whatever is  burned for fuel. Then
> there is the life-cycle releases as products become wastes. The point is
> that the natural carbon sink retains its carbon much longer and in decay
> slowly contributes to ecosystem functions such as creating habitat,
> filtering water and building new soil. Indeed the quickly growing young
> plantation draws down CO2 much faster, but it is nowhere near the pace of
> the release in deforestation.
>
> There are two processes we want to reward. 1) Slow the release into the
> atmosphere of carbon from wherever it is "sunk" and 2) retrieve from the
> atmosphere into new sinks in many forms (like terra preta). The thought is
> that it will take public policies to incentivize these processes.
>
>
>



-- 
Lou Gold

My blogs:
(English) http://lougold.blogspot.com/
(Portuguese) http://visionshare-pt.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070606/36bf3f9a/attachment.html