next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_60CB_01CE3645.A70F1570
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mary & All, Apr 10, 2013
It is past my bedtime but I feel compelled to offer a few =
observations.=20
First, The Economist may be a respected source but some (e.g. DW) =
consider it suspect because, with few exceptions, the articles are =
anonymous. I prefer to know who the author is and, when applicable, who =
pays his or her bills and why.
Second, the premise that wood or any energy source is carbon neutral =
is nonsence. It depends entirely on the context of growth and use. [ The =
sound of a Violin, if played poorly, can be dreadful. But that does not =
justify denouncing the instrument.]
Third, lets consider how use of wood can be nearly carbon neutral. =
It must be harvested and transported to the point of combustion with a =
minimum of petrochemical energy. Transporting wood by gas guzzlers to =
the far corners of the world is far from carbon neutral.=20
One of the best ways to approach carbon neutrality was developed in =
Europe generations ago; coppicing of hardwood at low grazing pressure =
and pollarding at high. The driving force initially of course was just a =
matter of convenience and rapid regrowth, not carbon fixation =
considerations. The advantage of these systems is the very rapid =
regrowth of suckers such that carbon fixation even in the first several =
years after cutting can approach that of full grown trees.=20
On the other hand, If the initial forest were softwood or mixed and =
overstocked then one can extract trees with no loss or even a gain in =
net carbon fixation. When forests are overstocked, as a consequence of =
e.g. regrowth from fire, windthrow or cutting and not thinned then the =
weaker trees eventually die and rot in the woods (releasing carbon) but =
until they die may decrease the overall carbon fixation (think candles =
with a tiny flame of chlorophyll above the wick).
Further when there is substantial blowdown, extraction of downed or =
damaged trees may increase net carbon fixation for a considerable =
period, provided extraction is not carbon intensive, because most of =
these downed trees will gradually rot and release as much carbon as they =
would if burned. And in the meantime they act as traps for windblown Fir =
seeds which form dense thickets that over 50 years or less all die and =
rot. We had a combination of high winds and heavy rain December 13, =
2010 and in some places with impaired surface drainage patches of 20-40 =
trees went down domino effect. In areas with better surface drainage =
only the largest trees went down and in wet areas clumps of 5-8 trees =
went over as a unit. And, oddly enough, trees that apparently had root =
systems damaged at that time continue to progressively lean and topple. =
And all of these, if not cut and burned, will generate Fir thickets and =
then thickets of dead/rotting Fir trees.
Fourth, the idea that old-growth forests fix carbon is indeed =
nonsence. An old forest, in balance, will by definition release as much =
carbon as it fixes.=20
=20
Fifth, distorting the market by offering an ill conceived subsidy in =
order to meet some artificial target is as counterproductive as a =
weight-loss program that resorts to amputation. And this, it seems to me =
is the major flaw in the European wood use initiative (as described in =
the current article). Think mandated targets for bio-fuel consumption =
(to reduce carbon emissions). So you clear and burn vast areas of virgin =
rain-forest to plant oil-palms; thus helping to meet bio-fuel targets =
while greatly increasing carbon emissions. Corn to alcohol is likewise =
flawed. Burn 3 units of petrochemical carbon to generate one unit of =
corn carbon. [Corn to alcohol, on the other hand would be nearly carbon =
neutral if the corn were grown with ox-power and elbow grease; distilled =
using plant fiber as fuel.] These pressure-cooker schemes for =
subsidy-induced change are a direct result of Politicians, who by =
necessity work within a short timeframe, being directly involved as =
opposed to Technocrats who could, if allowed to do so, work within =
realistic timeframes.
Sixth, I have favored maximum use of wind for decades but =
unfortunately there are many speed bumps yet to be resolved; e.g. =
homeowners who fear health problems pitted against company reps who =
scoff at the idea > stalemate.=20
Seventh, the optimum approach, as in all undertakings is =
multi-strand, balanced and=20
cost effective. Wood is not the silver bullet but it can be one silver =
bullet of many.
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Mary Macaulay=20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 8:54 PM
Subject: [NatureNS] tree biomass fuel panned by The Economist
One of The Economist leaders this week warns against the trend toward =
using forest biomass as fuel (they call it environmental lunacy). It's a =
great article on page 71 for those who subscribe=20
or at this link=20
=
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21575771-environmental-lunacy-euro=
pe-fuel-future
Please circulate this widely. It's nice to see this highly respected =
journal calling an axe an axe.
Mary Macaulay
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6236 - Release Date: =
04/10/13
------=_NextPart_000_60CB_01CE3645.A70F1570
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.19403">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dauto bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Hi Mary & All, =
=20
=
=20
Apr 10, 2013</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2> It is past my bedtime but I feel =
compelled=20
to offer a few observations. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2> First, The Economist may be a =
respected=20
source but some (e.g. DW) consider it suspect because, with few =
exceptions, the=20
articles are anonymous. I prefer to know who the author is and, =
when=20
applicable, who pays his or her bills and why.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2> Second, the premise that wood or =
any energy=20
source is carbon neutral is nonsence. It depends entir