[Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise

[dyarrow at nycap.rr.com]

i have no issue with such salvage operayions, but i see les and less 
wisdom in strategies to cut trees down just to make charcoal.
david

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
Date: Monday, January 7, 2008 0:00 am
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise
To: Frank Teuton <fteuton at videotron.ca>, dyarrow at nycap.rr.com
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

> Hi Frank, David,
> 
> Oh, one other source of wood for charcoal might be the ~300 
> million trees that were blown down by Katrina.  It's not annually 
> renewable (we hope to God?!), but it is going to decay entirely 
> its carbon content as CO2 emissions in perhaps ten years time.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> SKB
> 
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: dyarrow at nycap.rr.com<mailto:dyarrow at nycap.rr.com> 
>  To: Frank Teuton<mailto:fteuton at videotron.ca> 
>  Cc: 
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
>  Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 3:31 AM
>  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise
> 
> 
>  thanks, frank, for highlighting the illogic of treating the 
> pinnacle 
>  of biodiversity, and one of earth's primary carbon fixing 
> pathways -- 
>  forests -- as little more than fuelwood for charcoal.  not that 
> we 
>  need worry.  seems nature is rapidly finishing what man's folly 
> has 
>  begun.  catastrophic increases in forest fires may emit as much 
> carbon 
>  as our new coal-burning power plants.
> 
>  sunday night, CBS 60 minutes -- for a second time -- aired a 
> story on 
>  the extra-ordinary outburst of extreme forest fires in recent years:
>  The Age Of Mega-Fires
>  Expert: Warming Climate Fueling Mega-Fires
>  
> 
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/60minutes/main3380176.shtml<http://w
ww.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/60minutes/main3380176.shtml>
>  "This past fall, wildfires ripped through Southern California, 
> burning 
>  more than 500,000 acres of trees, destroying over 2,000 homes, 
> and 
>  claiming nine lives. Scientists now say we should brace 
> ourselves for 
>  more and more of these fires in the coming years, because 
> there's been 
>  an enormous change in Western fires. In truth, we've never seen 
>  anything like them in recorded history.  It appears we're living 
> in a 
>  new age of mega-fires -- forest infernos ten times bigger than 
> the 
>  fires we're used to seeing."
> 
>  10 years ago, a 100,000 acre fire was unusual; now it's ordinary 
> for 
>  two 100,000 acre burns simultaneously.  recent fire seasons have 
> seen 
>  several fires scorching 500,000 acres.  last year, one burned 
>  600,000.  the federal expenditure for fire control has jumped 7-
> fold 
>  in 20 years, and shows every indication of increasing further.  
> at the 
>  moment, fire danger in southern california is high, although the 
>  southeast states are getting rain to relieve what almost became 
> a 
>  record setting historic drought.
> 
>  not only has the scale of these fires greatly increased, so has 
> the 
>  intensity.  brush fires are no longer ordinary.  now these are 
> crown 
>  fires, rushing upwards as 100 to 350 foot columns of flame, 
> consuming 
>  entire trees.  this is killing entire forests, leaving behind a 
>  treeless terrain that will take decades -- perhaps over a 
> century to 
>  recover.  says one forest expert: "in the Southwest alone, 
> nearly two 
>  million acres of forest are gone and won't come back for centuries."
> 
>  this isn't happening only in america.  other areas of the globe 
> are 
>  experiencing unprecedented drought, dry spells and forest fires. 
> this 
>  is releasing huge amounts of carbon into the air.  but worse 
> still, 
>  this is degrading one of the planet's primary means to fix 
> carbon from 
>  the air and store it as carbohydrate in living biomass.  the 
> earth's 
>  capacity to remove carbon from the air is going up in smoke.
> 
>  if this keeps up, in another decade or two, we may consider any 
> forest 
>  too precious to be cut for any reason.
> 
>  to end the 60 minutes piece: ""You know, there are a lot of 
> people who 
>  don't believe in climate change," Pelley remarks. 
> 
>  "You won't find them on the fire line in the American West 
> anymore," 
>  Tom Boatner says. "Cause we've had climate change beat into us 
> over 
>  the last ten or fifteen years. We know what we’re seeing, and 
> we're 
>  dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and 
> humidity 
>  and drought, that's different than anything people have seen in 
> our 
>  lifetimes."
> 
>  for a green and peaceful planet,
>  david yarrow
> 
> 
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Frank Teuton 
> <fteuton at videotron.ca<mailto:fteuton at videotron.ca>>  Date: Sunday, 
> December 30, 2007 1:04 am
>  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Carbon emissions show sharp rise
>  To: "Sean K. Barry" 
> <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>, Richard.Black-
>  INTERNET at bbc.co.uk<mailto:INTERNET at bbc.co.uk>
>  Cc: terrapreta 
> <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
>  > Sean et al;
>  > 
>  > I fail to grasp the reasoning behind the idea that emptying 
>  > biologically active carbon reservoirs (soil OM, trees, 
> prairies, 
>  > etc.) is somehow fundamentally different than emptying 
>  > biologically inert (relatively speaking) reservoirs, coal, 
> oil, 
>  > gas, peat, etc.
>  > 
>  > The simple truth is, we can only manage atmospheric CO2 levels 
> by 
>  > learning to manage all the possible reservoirs of carbon, 
>  > including biological reservoirs as well as inert reservoirs. 
>  > Pumping relatively inert carbon underground is one way, which 
>  > includes terra preta approaches...aiming to increase SOM and 
>  > standing biomass via perennial plant strategies, including 
> forest 
>  > and prairie approaches, is another....stimulating 
> phytoplankton in 
>  > the ocean is of course still another.
>  > 
>  > In the meantime, it is simple arithmetic that depleting 
> existing 
>  > biological reservoirs further is part of the problem, not part 
> of 
>  > the solution. Increased deforestation for, say, charcoal 
>  > production where the charcoal is then subsequently burned for 
> fuel 
>  > empties the forest bioreservoir of carbon, which is not a good 
>  > thing. We will need to optimize all reservoirs of carbon to 
> make 
>  > this thing work.
>  > 
>  > It is my understanding that up until about 1950 the majority 
> of 
>  > the increase in atmospheric carbon was due to human land use 
>  > impacts, eg, deforestation, tillage, desertification, and 
> similar 
>  > phenomena. Not until about 1950 did fossil fuel burning exceed 
>  > biome degradation as the leading anthropogenic cause of 
>  > atmospheric CO2 increase. If the argument is that we need to 
> put 
>  > back the C, I would suggest we need to put it back not only 
> into 
>  > inert carbon forms in the ground, but also back into the 
> living 
>  > biological systems from whence a great deal of it was also taken.
>  > 
>  > It isn't one or the other, but what combinations of both can 
> be 
>  > made to work.
>  > 
>  > My two cents, 
>  > 
>  > Frank Teuton
> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Terrapreta mailing list
>  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>  
> 
http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
g<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.
org>  
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.o
rg/>
>  http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>
> 
>