https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/10/14/the-great-biomass-boondoggle/

—

As an aside one of my big problems with Gunns pulp mill that, thank goodness did not eventuate, was the electricity generation on ‘forest waste’ and black liquor. Some people were upset about locating it in the middle of farm land in an area with known inversion layer problems. But It was planned to be next Basslink. IMO it was never about paper pulp and always about turning the forests into electricity.

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

So how does CO2 absorption in a harvested forest compare with an old forest?

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

So how does CO2 absorption in a harvested forest compare with an old forest?

Old growth forest is the best for storage.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

So how does CO2 absorption in a harvested forest compare with an old forest?

Old growth forest is the best for storage.

Not necessarily.

If young growth forest absorbs more CO2 then the best storage strategy would be to cut it down when it had passed its absorption peak and bury it, or otherwise convert it into a fossil fuel.

I think we should count trees or living forests in carbon sequestration. The wood needs to be converted to some other form before it gets counted. For example charcoal which is then either buried or added to the soil. As soil carbon it is likely to stay locked up for some considerable time. As wood it hard to calculate how long the carbon in it stays out of the atmosphere.

party_pants said:

I think we should count trees or living forests in carbon sequestration. The wood needs to be converted to some other form before it gets counted. For example charcoal which is then either buried or added to the soil. As soil carbon it is likely to stay locked up for some considerable time. As wood it hard to calculate how long the carbon in it stays out of the atmosphere.

fuck

NOT

we should NOT count

party_pants said:

party_pants said:

I think we should count trees or living forests in carbon sequestration. The wood needs to be converted to some other form before it gets counted. For example charcoal which is then either buried or added to the soil. As soil carbon it is likely to stay locked up for some considerable time. As wood it hard to calculate how long the carbon in it stays out of the atmosphere.

fuck

NOT

we should NOT count

We knew what you meant.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

party_pants said:

I think we should count trees or living forests in carbon sequestration. The wood needs to be converted to some other form before it gets counted. For example charcoal which is then either buried or added to the soil. As soil carbon it is likely to stay locked up for some considerable time. As wood it hard to calculate how long the carbon in it stays out of the atmosphere.

fuck

NOT

we should NOT count

We knew what you meant.

I purposely took him at his word.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

fuck

NOT

we should NOT count

We knew what you meant.

I purposely took him at his word.

your calculations are usually out by an order of magnitude anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

So how does CO2 absorption in a harvested forest compare with an old forest?

>>in 2019 by Thomas Pugh of the Birmingham Institute of Forest Research in the UK found young forests sequester more carbon per year than old-growth forests.

“These findings upend conventional wisdom that old-growth tropical rainforests are the planet’s biggest carbon sinks,” Pugh’s study said. It defined old-growth forests as any stand over 140 years of age.

It would appear the two studies contradict each other. But both scientists say they are consistent.

“The difference is that Stephenson et al. looked at biomass of individual trees, whereas our study looks at biomass of whole stands of trees,” Pugh said in an email. “Whilst a single tree might continue to pile on more and more biomass, there will be less of such trees in a stand, simply because of their size and as tree stands age, gaps tend to appear due to tree mortality.”

“So, our conclusion is actually that young forests are responsible for more of the terrestrial carbon sink than old growth forests,” Pugh said.

“Both things are true,” Stephenson said in an email. “Individual tree mass growth rate increases with tree size, but old forests usually absorb carbon more slowly than young forests.”

However, the relative growth rates of young and old trees do not tell the entire story.

“Older forests store a lot more carbon than young forests and much of it is returned to the atmosphere quickly when harvested and planted with young trees,” says Beverly Law, a professor of global change biology at Oregon State University.

By the time it becomes a desk, table or 2-by-4, a log will lose about 70 percent of its carbon, according to Dominick DellaSala, director of the GEOS Institute, an environmental think tank based in Oregon.

About 45 percent of the carbon is left on the forest floor, said DellaSala, a member of the Oregon Global Warming Commission Task Force on Forest Carbon. “This includes decomposition of root wads, branches, and tops remaining on site and a little soil carbon. Logging takes nearly half the carbon and puts it into the atmosphere within years.”

Another 25 percent is lost during manufacturing, he said. And as the finished wood products decay over time, he said, they emit even more.

And that doesn’t include carbon emitted by chainsaws, logging trucks and lathes. In 2018, Law led a team of researchers who quantified these and all other carbon emissions as logs move from forest to sawmill. Their paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said logging operations in Oregon contribute an average of 33 million tons of CO2 to the air. This equates to almost as much as the world’s dirtiest coal plant, Taichung Coal Plant in Taiwan, which emits about 36 million tons per year.

Moreover, the climate impacts of logging are even greater if you factor in a harvested log’s lost future growth opportunities, Law says. Although her paper makes no attempt to quantify a logged tree’s foregone climate mitigation potential, she acknowledges it could be significant.<<

More:

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/tall-and-old-or-dense-and-young-which-kind-of-forest-is-better-for-the-climate/

If I were a wealthy investor I’d be putting my money in power infrastructure not where the electrons are coming from.
Then it wouldn’t matter to me if suddenly there is a big breakthrough in fusion plants and fossil/hydro/renewable generators go to the wall because the electrons will always have to be delivered.

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

A big placard at the latest climate change protest said “burn plants not rocks”.

I did research on biomass from algae for csiro. Water losses from evaporation are horrendous.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

A big placard at the latest climate change protest said “burn plants not rocks”.

I did research on biomass from algae for csiro. Water losses from evaporation are horrendous.

don’t use open ponds

what p_p said. convert it to biochar, extract the hydrogen, bury the charcoal.

ChrispenEvan said:

what p_p said. convert it to biochar, extract the hydrogen, bury the charcoal.

Does conversion to biochar have significant emissions?

Extracting hydrogen sounds OK, unless there are significant emissions associated with that.

Why not just bury the wood?

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what p_p said. convert it to biochar, extract the hydrogen, bury the charcoal.

Does conversion to biochar have significant emissions?

Extracting hydrogen sounds OK, unless there are significant emissions associated with that.

Why not just bury the wood?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122030.htm

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what p_p said. convert it to biochar, extract the hydrogen, bury the charcoal.

Does conversion to biochar have significant emissions?

Extracting hydrogen sounds OK, unless there are significant emissions associated with that.

Why not just bury the wood?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122030.htm

Thanks, I’ll read properly later.

Burying wood still seems like a good idea to me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does conversion to biochar have significant emissions?

Extracting hydrogen sounds OK, unless there are significant emissions associated with that.

Why not just bury the wood?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122030.htm

Thanks, I’ll read properly later.

Burying wood still seems like a good idea to me.

biochar is far better.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does conversion to biochar have significant emissions?

Extracting hydrogen sounds OK, unless there are significant emissions associated with that.

Why not just bury the wood?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122030.htm

Thanks, I’ll read properly later.

Burying wood still seems like a good idea to me.

Biochar is extremely long lasting and a tremendous soil improver.

Have a look at “terra preta” (and there’s heaps of modern research out there) eg:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what p_p said. convert it to biochar, extract the hydrogen, bury the charcoal.

Does conversion to biochar have significant emissions?

Extracting hydrogen sounds OK, unless there are significant emissions associated with that.

Why not just bury the wood?

The wood will need to be buried in such a way as to prevent it decomposing and leaking back into the atmosphere in the form of methane gas.

Adding carbon to soil in the form of charcoal is simpler and has the benefit of improving soil fertility. It’s a bit more of a win/win.

Presumably the biochar process will self-consume some of the hydrogen and carbon monoxide gases produced to provide further heat in a continuous cycle system. I thought this was pretty well developed technology already.

as an added bonus, hydrogen and carbon monoxide (syngas) can be used in direct reduction iron making instead of using coking coal and blast furnaces

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122030.htm

Thanks, I’ll read properly later.

Burying wood still seems like a good idea to me.

biochar is far better.

Tick of approval.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

party_pants said:

I think we should count trees or living forests in carbon sequestration. The wood needs to be converted to some other form before it gets counted. For example charcoal which is then either buried or added to the soil. As soil carbon it is likely to stay locked up for some considerable time. As wood it hard to calculate how long the carbon in it stays out of the atmosphere.

fuck

NOT

we should NOT count

We knew what you meant.

I didn’t. There are multiple opinions.

I say we do need to count trees as a sink of CO2. Living trees even better than dead ones.

These beautiful trees will soon be destroyed solely for the production of pulp for paper. 6 in 10 trees will become waste as they are too old and are not suitable for milling or pulping. 6 IN 10.

Globally this is a terrible tragedy, as we cannot afford to lose any more old-growth forest in an age of species extinctions and this ever-escalating climate crisis.

—-

At least next autumn they will have something napalm.

sarahs mum said:

These beautiful trees will soon be destroyed solely for the production of pulp for paper. 6 in 10 trees will become waste as they are too old and are not suitable for milling or pulping. 6 IN 10.

Globally this is a terrible tragedy, as we cannot afford to lose any more old-growth forest in an age of species extinctions and this ever-escalating climate crisis.

—-

At least next autumn they will have something napalm.

It is tragic that we cut down old growth forest trees, even for CO2 sequestration. Trees are the habitat for a diverse range of organisms and for us to destroy them we also destroy their ecosystems. When you take the CO2 cost of logging, the fuel to get them to the mill, the milling, then the transport to workshops, the CO2 cost of manufacture and getting them to market, not to mention two-thirds of the timber is left to rot or burn.

Why do we let the economists talk us into these ridiculous scenarios? And worse still, convince us that we are doing the right thing, but it is barbaric, achieves little and destroys much.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

These beautiful trees will soon be destroyed solely for the production of pulp for paper. 6 in 10 trees will become waste as they are too old and are not suitable for milling or pulping. 6 IN 10.

Globally this is a terrible tragedy, as we cannot afford to lose any more old-growth forest in an age of species extinctions and this ever-escalating climate crisis.

—-

At least next autumn they will have something napalm.

It is tragic that we cut down old growth forest trees, even for CO2 sequestration. Trees are the habitat for a diverse range of organisms and for us to destroy them we also destroy their ecosystems. When you take the CO2 cost of logging, the fuel to get them to the mill, the milling, then the transport to workshops, the CO2 cost of manufacture and getting them to market, not to mention two-thirds of the timber is left to rot or burn.

Why do we let the economists talk us into these ridiculous scenarios? And worse still, convince us that we are doing the right thing, but it is barbaric, achieves little and destroys much.

Some of these old growth coups have a 15% return. (They only count what is above ground.) They push it all together into windrows and napalm it in autumn.

There is going be a push into forests that weren’t planned to be pushed for some time because they lost so many coups to fire in the south last summer.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

These beautiful trees will soon be destroyed solely for the production of pulp for paper. 6 in 10 trees will become waste as they are too old and are not suitable for milling or pulping. 6 IN 10.

Globally this is a terrible tragedy, as we cannot afford to lose any more old-growth forest in an age of species extinctions and this ever-escalating climate crisis.

—-

At least next autumn they will have something napalm.

It is tragic that we cut down old growth forest trees, even for CO2 sequestration. Trees are the habitat for a diverse range of organisms and for us to destroy them we also destroy their ecosystems. When you take the CO2 cost of logging, the fuel to get them to the mill, the milling, then the transport to workshops, the CO2 cost of manufacture and getting them to market, not to mention two-thirds of the timber is left to rot or burn.

Why do we let the economists talk us into these ridiculous scenarios? And worse still, convince us that we are doing the right thing, but it is barbaric, achieves little and destroys much.

Some of these old growth coups have a 15% return. (They only count what is above ground.) They push it all together into windrows and napalm it in autumn.

There is going be a push into forests that weren’t planned to be pushed for some time because they lost so many coups to fire in the south last summer.

Those people wont be happy until the last tree is cut down. I reckon there must be a few kickbacks going on to permit such unnecessary destruction.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

It is tragic that we cut down old growth forest trees, even for CO2 sequestration. Trees are the habitat for a diverse range of organisms and for us to destroy them we also destroy their ecosystems. When you take the CO2 cost of logging, the fuel to get them to the mill, the milling, then the transport to workshops, the CO2 cost of manufacture and getting them to market, not to mention two-thirds of the timber is left to rot or burn.

Why do we let the economists talk us into these ridiculous scenarios? And worse still, convince us that we are doing the right thing, but it is barbaric, achieves little and destroys much.

Some of these old growth coups have a 15% return. (They only count what is above ground.) They push it all together into windrows and napalm it in autumn.

There is going be a push into forests that weren’t planned to be pushed for some time because they lost so many coups to fire in the south last summer.

Those people wont be happy until the last tree is cut down. I reckon there must be a few kickbacks going on to permit such unnecessary destruction.

I read one reference that said it (the rorting) started with the first Huon Pine licenses and has continued ever since.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

Some of these old growth coups have a 15% return. (They only count what is above ground.) They push it all together into windrows and napalm it in autumn.

There is going be a push into forests that weren’t planned to be pushed for some time because they lost so many coups to fire in the south last summer.

Those people wont be happy until the last tree is cut down. I reckon there must be a few kickbacks going on to permit such unnecessary destruction.

I read one reference that said it (the rorting) started with the first Huon Pine licenses and has continued ever since.

Old growth logging is a dirty business with a lot of very callous and shady people attached to it.

PermeateFree said:

Why do we let the economists talk us into these ridiculous scenarios? And worse still, convince us that we are doing the right thing, but it is barbaric, achieves little and destroys much.

Which economists in particular support the logging of old-growth forests?

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

Those people wont be happy until the last tree is cut down. I reckon there must be a few kickbacks going on to permit such unnecessary destruction.

I read one reference that said it (the rorting) started with the first Huon Pine licenses and has continued ever since.

Old growth logging is a dirty business with a lot of very callous and shady people attached to it.

One of my friends kept meticulous records. When he went to the ombudsman the ombudsman said,’ You’ll need evidence.’

So he took in boxes of evidence but it still came to nought.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Why do we let the economists talk us into these ridiculous scenarios? And worse still, convince us that we are doing the right thing, but it is barbaric, achieves little and destroys much.

Which economists in particular support the logging of old-growth forests?

I would have thought the recommendations and lobbying would indicate their involvement along with vested interests in the timber industry.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I read one reference that said it (the rorting) started with the first Huon Pine licenses and has continued ever since.

Old growth logging is a dirty business with a lot of very callous and shady people attached to it.

One of my friends kept meticulous records. When he went to the ombudsman the ombudsman said,’ You’ll need evidence.’

So he took in boxes of evidence but it still came to nought.

High level government involvement, as is the case in most timber harvesting countries.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Why do we let the economists talk us into these ridiculous scenarios? And worse still, convince us that we are doing the right thing, but it is barbaric, achieves little and destroys much.

Which economists in particular support the logging of old-growth forests?

I would have thought the recommendations and lobbying would indicate their involvement along with vested interests in the timber industry.

An economist might suggest that logging would have higher returns on investment than environmental tourism but that is about it. Surely they do environmental studies calculating the impact of logging on bio-diversity which get brought to the table though?

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Which economists in particular support the logging of old-growth forests?

I would have thought the recommendations and lobbying would indicate their involvement along with vested interests in the timber industry.

An economist might suggest that logging would have higher returns on investment than environmental tourism but that is about it. Surely they do environmental studies calculating the impact of logging on bio-diversity which get brought to the table though?

LOL where have you been. They do what they want. I think you will find the interests of economists is a lot more involved, in fact anywhere there is money, especially with government involvement.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Which economists in particular support the logging of old-growth forests?

I would have thought the recommendations and lobbying would indicate their involvement along with vested interests in the timber industry.

An economist might suggest that logging would have higher returns on investment than environmental tourism but that is about it. Surely they do environmental studies calculating the impact of logging on bio-diversity which get brought to the table though?

That doesn’t seem to be the way it goes. There are rules. Like..They have to stay 30 metres? away from a watercourse. Seen a lot of pictorial evidence of that one broken lots over the years. They have to stay so far away from eagle nests. They have to stay that far away from ‘giants,’ Giants seem to be lost in regen burns. Gunns got fined a lot for not following the act.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

I would have thought the recommendations and lobbying would indicate their involvement along with vested interests in the timber industry.

An economist might suggest that logging would have higher returns on investment than environmental tourism but that is about it. Surely they do environmental studies calculating the impact of logging on bio-diversity which get brought to the table though?

LOL where have you been. They do what they want. I think you will find the interests of economists is a lot more involved, in fact anywhere there is money, especially with government involvement.

I suppose if we’re talking about 100 square km of forest logging 5sqkm of it isn’t considered high enough impact to be worth worrying about.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

An economist might suggest that logging would have higher returns on investment than environmental tourism but that is about it. Surely they do environmental studies calculating the impact of logging on bio-diversity which get brought to the table though?

LOL where have you been. They do what they want. I think you will find the interests of economists is a lot more involved, in fact anywhere there is money, especially with government involvement.

I suppose if we’re talking about 100 square km of forest logging 5sqkm of it isn’t considered high enough impact to be worth worrying about.

But they eventually get around to logging most of the rest in following years, then after around 40 years or so, they start all over again on the regrowth. They generally don’t log everything, only certain commercial species, so some areas are ignored, whilst others are more heavily logged. A logged coup looks like they fought a war on it, everything is felled or pushed over regardless of their biological value. Species are lost, both flora and fauna, the soils are literally turned over when they get in there, which damages much small plant regeneration, plus destroys the habitat for fauna species. As these coups are not investigated in any detail, we really don’t know what might be lost. Last but not least the destroyed vegetation and logs of lesser quality are pushed into rows and burnt, of which these intense and prolong fires sterilise the soils below, again destroying the ecosystem and regeneration potential. They claim the forest will regrow, but they don’t tell you it will be just a small fraction of what was once there.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

LOL where have you been. They do what they want. I think you will find the interests of economists is a lot more involved, in fact anywhere there is money, especially with government involvement.

I suppose if we’re talking about 100 square km of forest logging 5sqkm of it isn’t considered high enough impact to be worth worrying about.

But they eventually get around to logging most of the rest in following years, then after around 40 years or so, they start all over again on the regrowth. They generally don’t log everything, only certain commercial species, so some areas are ignored, whilst others are more heavily logged. A logged coup looks like they fought a war on it, everything is felled or pushed over regardless of their biological value. Species are lost, both flora and fauna, the soils are literally turned over when they get in there, which damages much small plant regeneration, plus destroys the habitat for fauna species. As these coups are not investigated in any detail, we really don’t know what might be lost. Last but not least the destroyed vegetation and logs of lesser quality are pushed into rows and burnt, of which these intense and prolong fires sterilise the soils below, again destroying the ecosystem and regeneration potential. They claim the forest will regrow, but they don’t tell you it will be just a small fraction of what was once there.

Oh, I think they make it clear that they need to do high temp burning to get euc forest regen.

Lots of coups down here of late have been Dicksonia fern for the British market. This was supposed to be salvage. But now it is push.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

So how does CO2 absorption in a harvested forest compare with an old forest?

Old forests tend to be pretty “stable”: plantation forests take in more CO2 per hectare per annum.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

So how does CO2 absorption in a harvested forest compare with an old forest?

Old forests tend to be pretty “stable”: plantation forests take in more CO2 per hectare per annum.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

biomass from algae is the only way forward

save the trees

So how does CO2 absorption in a harvested forest compare with an old forest?

Old forests tend to be pretty “stable”: plantation forests take in more CO2 per hectare per annum.

That is not the case, older forest still grow and develop, although young developing forests, largely due to more young trees to the hectare will absorb slightly more CO2, but not excessively so.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So how does CO2 absorption in a harvested forest compare with an old forest?

Old forests tend to be pretty “stable”: plantation forests take in more CO2 per hectare per annum.

That is not the case, older forest still grow and develop, although young developing forests, largely due to more young trees to the hectare will absorb slightly more CO2, but not excessively so.

My problem is the conversion of old forest to new seems to put a lot of carbon in the air. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable. The napalm thing..not so much..even though they are creating new forest.

PermeateFree said:

That is not the case

Nah really … it is. It’s not even close.

sarahs mum said:

My problem is the conversion of old forest to new seems to put a lot of carbon in the air. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable. The napalm thing..not so much..even though they are creating new forest.

Well I don’t think any old forests should be “converted” at all. They should be protected at all costs.

Fortunately there is abundant clear land already for new plantations.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

My problem is the conversion of old forest to new seems to put a lot of carbon in the air. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable. The napalm thing..not so much..even though they are creating new forest.

Well I don’t think any old forests should be “converted” at all. They should be protected at all costs.

Fortunately there is abundant clear land already for new plantations.

There was a project down here a couple of decades ago where they took one tree that was old growth and doomed for chipping and turned it into furniture and sculptures and musical instruments. Turned it something $40k of stuff. Kept a score of people busy.That’s sustainable.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

That is not the case

Nah really … it is. It’s not even close.

Is that so? Well consider the fact that large old growth trees have many branches, each with many off-shoots. Old growth forests usually have a middle story and a lower story, something you don’t get in a new growth forest because of the competition.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

My problem is the conversion of old forest to new seems to put a lot of carbon in the air. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable. The napalm thing..not so much..even though they are creating new forest.

Well I don’t think any old forests should be “converted” at all. They should be protected at all costs.

Fortunately there is abundant clear land already for new plantations.

There was a project down here a couple of decades ago where they took one tree that was old growth and doomed for chipping and turned it into furniture and sculptures and musical instruments. Turned it something $40k of stuff. Kept a score of people busy.That’s sustainable.

Yes. It would be nice if they felled every 20th tree and turned it into high-value-added end products. Chopping down majestic old trees for toilet paper doesn’t make any old sense to anyone with half a brain IMO.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Well I don’t think any old forests should be “converted” at all. They should be protected at all costs.

Fortunately there is abundant clear land already for new plantations.

There was a project down here a couple of decades ago where they took one tree that was old growth and doomed for chipping and turned it into furniture and sculptures and musical instruments. Turned it something $40k of stuff. Kept a score of people busy.That’s sustainable.

Yes. It would be nice if they felled every 20th tree and turned it into high-value-added end products. Chopping down majestic old trees for toilet paper doesn’t make any old sense to anyone with half a brain IMO.

Or just burning it because you don’t have orders for that.

Or appreciation. C grade myrtle is so very pretty. A grade stuff has no patterning.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

That is not the case

Nah really … it is. It’s not even close.

>>Researchers at the Birmingham Institute of Forest Research (BIFoR) in the United Kingdom modeled carbon storage in old-growth and regrown forests between 1981 and 2010 using recent data on forest ages as well as the latest global land cover change data set produced by the University of Maryland. Their results, published recently in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveal that intact, old-growth forests sequestered 950 million to 1.11 billion metric tons of carbon per year while younger forests—those that have been growing less than 140 years—stored between 1.17 and 1.66 billion metric tons per year.<<

Is this what you are using for new forest growth? If it is, I would suggest a forest anywhere near 140 years of age is very much a regrowth forest and starting to develop into a mature forest, in other words plenty of large trees. And even so, despite the age factor a European or American forest is very different to an Australian forest that has a considerably greater middle and lower story vegetation. It is apples vs oranges.

https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones

A bit of an explanation there about why old forest don’t take up much carbon

In case you’re interested

dv said:

https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones

A bit of an explanation there about why old forest don’t take up much carbon

In case you’re interested

The quote in my last post was taken from that article. Have you read it?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones

A bit of an explanation there about why old forest don’t take up much carbon

In case you’re interested

The quote in my last post was taken from that article. Have you read it?

You might like to read the following Wiki information regarding old growth forests, especially in Australia:

>>Old-growth forests are often perceived to be in equilibrium or in a state of decay. However, evidence from analysis of carbon stored above ground and in the soil has shown old-growth forests are more productive at storing carbon than younger forests. Forest harvesting has little or no effect on the amount of carbon stored in the soil, but other research suggests older forests that have trees of many ages, multiple layers, and little disturbance have the highest capacities for carbon storage. As trees grow, they remove carbon from the atmosphere, and protecting these pools of carbon prevents emissions into the atmosphere. Proponents of harvesting the forest argue the carbon stored in wood is available for use as biomass energy (displacing fossil fuel use), although using biomass as a fuel produces air pollution in the form of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulates, and other pollutants, in some cases at levels above those from traditional fuel sources such as coal or natural gas.<<

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones

A bit of an explanation there about why old forest don’t take up much carbon

In case you’re interested

The quote in my last post was taken from that article. Have you read it?

You might like to read the following Wiki information regarding old growth forests, especially in Australia:

>>Old-growth forests are often perceived to be in equilibrium or in a state of decay. However, evidence from analysis of carbon stored above ground and in the soil has shown old-growth forests are more productive at storing carbon than younger forests. Forest harvesting has little or no effect on the amount of carbon stored in the soil, but other research suggests older forests that have trees of many ages, multiple layers, and little disturbance have the highest capacities for carbon storage. As trees grow, they remove carbon from the atmosphere, and protecting these pools of carbon prevents emissions into the atmosphere. Proponents of harvesting the forest argue the carbon stored in wood is available for use as biomass energy (displacing fossil fuel use), although using biomass as a fuel produces air pollution in the form of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulates, and other pollutants, in some cases at levels above those from traditional fuel sources such as coal or natural gas.<<

>>Large, older trees have been found to grow faster and absorb carbon dioxide more rapidly than younger, smaller trees, despite the previous view that trees’ growth slowed as they developed. … This suggests that older trees play a vital role in absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.<<

https://theconversation.com/big-old-trees-grow-faster-making-them-vital-carbon-absorbers-22104

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

The quote in my last post was taken from that article. Have you read it?

You might like to read the following Wiki information regarding old growth forests, especially in Australia:

>>Old-growth forests are often perceived to be in equilibrium or in a state of decay. However, evidence from analysis of carbon stored above ground and in the soil has shown old-growth forests are more productive at storing carbon than younger forests. Forest harvesting has little or no effect on the amount of carbon stored in the soil, but other research suggests older forests that have trees of many ages, multiple layers, and little disturbance have the highest capacities for carbon storage. As trees grow, they remove carbon from the atmosphere, and protecting these pools of carbon prevents emissions into the atmosphere. Proponents of harvesting the forest argue the carbon stored in wood is available for use as biomass energy (displacing fossil fuel use), although using biomass as a fuel produces air pollution in the form of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulates, and other pollutants, in some cases at levels above those from traditional fuel sources such as coal or natural gas.<<

>>Large, older trees have been found to grow faster and absorb carbon dioxide more rapidly than younger, smaller trees, despite the previous view that trees’ growth slowed as they developed. … This suggests that older trees play a vital role in absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.<<

https://theconversation.com/big-old-trees-grow-faster-making-them-vital-carbon-absorbers-22104

>>Bigger trees grow faster than smaller ones, contradicting previous assumptions that growth rates slowed with age, according to a study in the journal Nature. That means larger trees will absorb carbon dioxide faster.

Growth rates increased with size in 97 per cent of tropical and temperate trees, according to a study published today of more than 650,000 individual trees from 403 species. As part of photosynthesis, trees absorb greenhouse gases that cause global warming.<<

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oldgrowth-forests-seen-more-valuable-as-carbon-sinks-study-20140116-30vvc.html

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

You might like to read the following Wiki information regarding old growth forests, especially in Australia:

>>Old-growth forests are often perceived to be in equilibrium or in a state of decay. However, evidence from analysis of carbon stored above ground and in the soil has shown old-growth forests are more productive at storing carbon than younger forests. Forest harvesting has little or no effect on the amount of carbon stored in the soil, but other research suggests older forests that have trees of many ages, multiple layers, and little disturbance have the highest capacities for carbon storage. As trees grow, they remove carbon from the atmosphere, and protecting these pools of carbon prevents emissions into the atmosphere. Proponents of harvesting the forest argue the carbon stored in wood is available for use as biomass energy (displacing fossil fuel use), although using biomass as a fuel produces air pollution in the form of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulates, and other pollutants, in some cases at levels above those from traditional fuel sources such as coal or natural gas.<<

>>Large, older trees have been found to grow faster and absorb carbon dioxide more rapidly than younger, smaller trees, despite the previous view that trees’ growth slowed as they developed. … This suggests that older trees play a vital role in absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.<<

https://theconversation.com/big-old-trees-grow-faster-making-them-vital-carbon-absorbers-22104

>>Bigger trees grow faster than smaller ones, contradicting previous assumptions that growth rates slowed with age, according to a study in the journal Nature. That means larger trees will absorb carbon dioxide faster.

Growth rates increased with size in 97 per cent of tropical and temperate trees, according to a study published today of more than 650,000 individual trees from 403 species. As part of photosynthesis, trees absorb greenhouse gases that cause global warming.<<

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oldgrowth-forests-seen-more-valuable-as-carbon-sinks-study-20140116-30vvc.html

>>Old-growth forest removes CO2 from the atmosphere at rates that vary with geography and climate. Research conducted in Australia determined that old-growth forests in southern Victoria, which contains trees in excess of 350 years old, store up to 1,900 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Forests in tropical regions, however, typically contain 200–500 tonnes per hectare. The variation is attributed to slower rates of organic matter decomposition in the temperate forest.

Until recently it was believed only young forests sequestered atmospheric carbon in early growth and that old-growth forests were only sinks in which the carbon was stored. Recent studies, however, have identified that intact old-growth forests continue to take up carbon from the atmosphere even past the point at which they reach maturity. By measuring growth rates, researchers have identified that carbon sequestration in trees increases continuously because the overall leaf area increases as they grow, enabling bigger trees to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. Older, larger deciduous trees reproduce more new leaves, thus capturing the most carbon from the atmosphere.<<

http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/role-old-growth-forests-carbon-sequestration/

There is much more on this subject regarding Australian Forests if you are interested in reading it.

dv said:

https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones

A bit of an explanation there about why old forest don’t take up much carbon

In case you’re interested

Suggest you check out the people involved with the writing, publishing and printing of the above as they are very much vested interests. Bit like getting Coca Cola to do a report about sugary drinks. You know pretty much what they will say. Also check the figures in the article because they are decidedly dodgy, as is the entire article for that matter.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones

A bit of an explanation there about why old forest don’t take up much carbon

In case you’re interested

Suggest you check out the people involved with the writing, publishing and printing of the above as they are very much vested interests. Bit like getting Coca Cola to do a report about sugary drinks. You know pretty much what they will say. Also check the figures in the article because they are decidedly dodgy, as is the entire article for that matter.

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bes2.1443

sarahs mum said:

.. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable.

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

ChrispenEvan said:

sarahs mum said:

.. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable.

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

Value adding, I believe is the term.

ChrispenEvan said:

sarahs mum said:

.. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable.

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

And no construction of roads in and out. Use helicopters instead.

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

sarahs mum said:

.. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable.

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

And no construction of roads in and out. Use helicopters instead.

Are you still feeling the effects of last night’s drinkies WR? You were quite, um, chatty…

;)

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

And no construction of roads in and out. Use helicopters instead.

Are you still feeling the effects of last night’s drinkies WR? You were quite, um, chatty…

;)

Nothing a couple of panadols won’t fix.

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

And no construction of roads in and out. Use helicopters instead.

Are you still feeling the effects of last night’s drinkies WR? You were quite, um, chatty…

;)

Hehehehehe :)

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

sarahs mum said:

.. Selective logging of old forest for furniture might be benign enough and sustainable.

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

Value adding, I believe is the term.

I haven’t read the whole thread in detail, but there did seem to be a fair bit of the old either-orism in the debate.

Is there any reason why we should not preserve old-growth forests and extend planation forests for long term uses of timber and production of biochar etc?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

Value adding, I believe is the term.

I haven’t read the whole thread in detail, but there did seem to be a fair bit of the old either-orism in the debate.

Is there any reason why we should not preserve old-growth forests and extend planation forests for long term uses of timber and production of biochar etc?

no.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this is my view as well. get as much for each log, doing the least amount of damage, as you can.

Value adding, I believe is the term.

I haven’t read the whole thread in detail, but there did seem to be a fair bit of the old either-orism in the debate.

Is there any reason why we should not preserve old-growth forests and extend planation forests for long term uses of timber and production of biochar etc?

It comes down to the fact that we have very little old growth forest remaining. Yes we do need to make more of it and allowing some plantation forests to grow older is a way of doing that considering that we also have little natural regrowth forest as well but do have plantatiions planted upon land that previously supported forests.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Value adding, I believe is the term.

I haven’t read the whole thread in detail, but there did seem to be a fair bit of the old either-orism in the debate.

Is there any reason why we should not preserve old-growth forests and extend planation forests for long term uses of timber and production of biochar etc?

It comes down to the fact that we have very little old growth forest remaining. Yes we do need to make more of it and allowing some plantation forests to grow older is a way of doing that considering that we also have little natural regrowth forest as well but do have plantatiions planted upon land that previously supported forests.

Ok, some planation forests to replace removed old forests goes without saying.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I haven’t read the whole thread in detail, but there did seem to be a fair bit of the old either-orism in the debate.

Is there any reason why we should not preserve old-growth forests and extend planation forests for long term uses of timber and production of biochar etc?

It comes down to the fact that we have very little old growth forest remaining. Yes we do need to make more of it and allowing some plantation forests to grow older is a way of doing that considering that we also have little natural regrowth forest as well but do have plantatiions planted upon land that previously supported forests.

Ok, some planation forests to replace removed old forests goes without saying.

Care about what we plant for or leave for old growth, is another consideration.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

It comes down to the fact that we have very little old growth forest remaining. Yes we do need to make more of it and allowing some plantation forests to grow older is a way of doing that considering that we also have little natural regrowth forest as well but do have plantatiions planted upon land that previously supported forests.

Ok, some planation forests to replace removed old forests goes without saying.

Care about what we plant for or leave for old growth, is another consideration.

> preserve old-growth forests and extend plantation forests

Ha!

Extending plantation forests is identical to cutting down old growth forests. They’re synonyms.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ok, some planation forests to replace removed old forests goes without saying.

Care about what we plant for or leave for old growth, is another consideration.

> preserve old-growth forests and extend plantation forests

Ha!

Extending plantation forests is identical to cutting down old growth forests. They’re synonyms.

Only on planets where all land where forests can grow is covered by a forest that is either plantation or old growth.

We do not live on such a planet.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Care about what we plant for or leave for old growth, is another consideration.

> preserve old-growth forests and extend plantation forests

Ha!

Extending plantation forests is identical to cutting down old growth forests. They’re synonyms.

Only on planets where all land where forests can grow is covered by a forest that is either plantation or old growth.

We do not live on such a planet.

This is true.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ok, some planation forests to replace removed old forests goes without saying.

Care about what we plant for or leave for old growth, is another consideration.

> preserve old-growth forests and extend plantation forests

Ha!

Extending plantation forests is identical to cutting down old growth forests. They’re synonyms.

During the MIS schemes a lot of poor farming land and more good farming land than was a good thing went into plantations. Since the schemes fell apart there has been no upkeep. The scheme in administration still own the trees. The land owners are tied up with trees they can’t do anything with but try to contain the fire risk on the verges.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ok, some planation forests to replace removed old forests goes without saying.

Care about what we plant for or leave for old growth, is another consideration.

> preserve old-growth forests and extend plantation forests

Ha!

Extending plantation forests is identical to cutting down old growth forests. They’re synonyms.

I don’t understand. Could you please explain how they are synonymous.

You getting any rain yet, MV?

mollwollfumble said:

> preserve old-growth forests and extend plantation forests

Ha!

Extending plantation forests is identical to cutting down old growth forests. They’re synonyms.

Nonsense.

Could be a bad day for Boris, it will probably end with him still not winning a vote in the Commons.
He’s also a rugby tragic, there could be a lot of red wine spilt on the lounge.

Peak Warming Man said:

Could be a bad day for Boris, it will probably end with him still not winning a vote in the Commons.
He’s also a rugby tragic, there could be a lot of red wine spilt on the lounge.

Could be a close one, with defections in either direction

Peak Warming Man said:

You getting any rain yet, MV?

Nope. Lots of rumbling for nothing. We had a couple of spots earlier today.

Peak Warming Man said:

Could be a bad day for Boris, it will probably end with him still not winning a vote in the Commons.
He’s also a rugby tragic, there could be a lot of red wine spilt on the lounge.

what???

Boris said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Could be a bad day for Boris, it will probably end with him still not winning a vote in the Commons.
He’s also a rugby tragic, there could be a lot of red wine spilt on the lounge.

what???

BoJo.

Probably meant for the Brexit thread, but PWM is famous for wrong-thread=posting type behaviour.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

> preserve old-growth forests and extend plantation forests

Ha!

Extending plantation forests is identical to cutting down old growth forests. They’re synonyms.

Nonsense.

What are you going to do? Start new plantations on rafts on the ocean or thaw out the arctic permafrost to create more arable land?

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

> preserve old-growth forests and extend plantation forests

Ha!

Extending plantation forests is identical to cutting down old growth forests. They’re synonyms.

Nonsense.

What are you going to do? Start new plantations on rafts on the ocean or thaw out the arctic permafrost to create more arable land?

In the height of the MIS madness a plantation was planted on the West coast on salty marshy bleak exposed ground. It failed.

They sold some sucker the idea of growing trees where no tree has ever grown.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Nonsense.

What are you going to do? Start new plantations on rafts on the ocean or thaw out the arctic permafrost to create more arable land?

Dude, Australia is about 2% old growth forest. We have arable land up the wazoo.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Nonsense.

What are you going to do? Start new plantations on rafts on the ocean or thaw out the arctic permafrost to create more arable land?

Dude, Australia is about 2% old growth forest. We have arable land up the wazoo.

No response?

So we are agreed that increasing plantation forests is not the same as reducing old-growth forests then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

What are you going to do? Start new plantations on rafts on the ocean or thaw out the arctic permafrost to create more arable land?

Dude, Australia is about 2% old growth forest. We have arable land up the wazoo.

No response?

So we are agreed that increasing plantation forests is not the same as reducing old-growth forests then?

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Dude, Australia is about 2% old growth forest. We have arable land up the wazoo.

No response?

So we are agreed that increasing plantation forests is not the same as reducing old-growth forests then?

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

This is the biggest problem you see. I have read a bit about what you all think about forests and conclude that not much is known or understood at all. I have mentioned the book that Peter Wohlleben wrote. A book that seems to have caused people to say both: now I grok it or WTF is he on about.

In Australia it is a lot about the availability of water and heat. Mostly we have one but not the other at the crucial moments. Billions of trees either never germinate or die within the first day or week of germinating. Forests don’t make themselves easily. Forests are communities made up of all of those beings that were overlooked while nor seeing the wood for the trees.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No response?

So we are agreed that increasing plantation forests is not the same as reducing old-growth forests then?

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

This is the biggest problem you see. I have read a bit about what you all think about forests and conclude that not much is known or understood at all. I have mentioned the book that Peter Wohlleben wrote. A book that seems to have caused people to say both: now I grok it or WTF is he on about.

In Australia it is a lot about the availability of water and heat. Mostly we have one but not the other at the crucial moments. Billions of trees either never germinate or die within the first day or week of germinating. Forests don’t make themselves easily. Forests are communities made up of all of those beings that were overlooked while nor seeing the wood for the trees.

Not seeing the wood for the trees or seeing the wood to be removed rather than the city that each tree is within it’s megaopolis of the forest.

Tamb said:

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

Let’s sign up for the Chinese government’s ‘assistance’ programmes.

Either they’ll give us the money/resources/labour to turn the deserts into gardens, or they’ll get a good look at the real estate and decide to leave us alone.

Either way, it’s a win.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

This is the biggest problem you see. I have read a bit about what you all think about forests and conclude that not much is known or understood at all. I have mentioned the book that Peter Wohlleben wrote. A book that seems to have caused people to say both: now I grok it or WTF is he on about.

In Australia it is a lot about the availability of water and heat. Mostly we have one but not the other at the crucial moments. Billions of trees either never germinate or die within the first day or week of germinating. Forests don’t make themselves easily. Forests are communities made up of all of those beings that were overlooked while nor seeing the wood for the trees.

Not seeing the wood for the trees or seeing the wood to be removed rather than the city that each tree is within it’s megaopolis of the forest.

In the marginal semi-arid parts of Australia we cleared mercilessly either by rinkbarking and bulldozing stump jumping or by sheep and rabbits until the land had nothing left to give back. In the rainforests we pused it all down the hill until we had to put something there to live off so they planted kikuyu.

It seems now to be completely a nonsensical or moronic attitude that we had mainly because we left ourselves little or no room for recovery.

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

Let’s sign up for the Chinese government’s ‘assistance’ programmes.

Either they’ll give us the money/resources/labour to turn the deserts into gardens, or they’ll get a good look at the real estate and decide to leave us alone.

Either way, it’s a win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Line

Just as our water is vital to the survival of the environment and the economy, so too are forests. Managed plantations are not forests.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Dude, Australia is about 2% old growth forest. We have arable land up the wazoo.

No response?

So we are agreed that increasing plantation forests is not the same as reducing old-growth forests then?

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

It doesn’t matter that there is plenty of semi desert. There’s still over 50000000 hectares of land that is well watered, not currently cropped and sparsely treed.

dv said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No response?

So we are agreed that increasing plantation forests is not the same as reducing old-growth forests then?

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

It doesn’t matter that there is plenty of semi desert. There’s still over 50000000 hectares of land that is well watered, not currently cropped and sparsely treed.

Roughly where?

Tamb said:

dv said:

Tamb said:

Not sure about all that arable land. Mainly it’s semi desert.

It doesn’t matter that there is plenty of semi desert. There’s still over 50000000 hectares of land that is well watered, not currently cropped and sparsely treed.

Roughly where?

Roughly in various places within 400 km of the coast except for the Bight and Northern WA.

dv said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

It doesn’t matter that there is plenty of semi desert. There’s still over 50000000 hectares of land that is well watered, not currently cropped and sparsely treed.

Roughly where?

Roughly in various places within 400 km of the coast except for the Bight and Northern WA.

OK Thanks.

We have arable land up the wazoo.

—

where arabs live

Ian said:

We have arable land up the wazoo.

—

where arabs live

Dear oh dear.

Peak Warming Man said:

Ian said:

We have arable land up the wazoo.

—

where arabs live

Dear oh dear.

So not The Great Grey-Green Greasy Limpopo River.

Peak Warming Man said:

Ian said:

We have arable land up the wazoo.

—

where arabs live

Dear oh dear.

On one grain of rice.. quite cheap

To be clear though I’m not saying that 50000000 hectares of plantation would be without negative effects, particularly on biodiversity.

But if you did…
It would amount to near on a gigatonne of CO2 sucked up per annum.

dv said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

It doesn’t matter that there is plenty of semi desert. There’s still over 50000000 hectares of land that is well watered, not currently cropped and sparsely treed.

Roughly where?

Roughly in various places within 400 km of the coast except for the Bight and Northern WA.

Exactly where 85% of the population live and where they don’t want ferocious bushfire prone forests. Humans want kikuyu and claret ashes.

dv said:

To be clear though I’m not saying that 50000000 hectares of plantation would be without negative effects, particularly on biodiversity.

But if you did…
It would amount to near on a gigatonne of CO2 sucked up per annum.

Are you talking permanent plantations or harvestable plantations?

dv said:

To be clear though I’m not saying that 50000000 hectares of plantation would be without negative effects, particularly on biodiversity.

But if you did…
It would amount to near on a gigatonne of CO2 sucked up per annum.

CO2 or food then. Can’t have both.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

To be clear though I’m not saying that 50000000 hectares of plantation would be without negative effects, particularly on biodiversity.

But if you did…
It would amount to near on a gigatonne of CO2 sucked up per annum.

CO2 or food then. Can’t have both.

Please read more carefully. The 50000000 hectares I mention is well-watered arable land NOT currently cropped or forested. This project wouldn’t decrease food output.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

To be clear though I’m not saying that 50000000 hectares of plantation would be without negative effects, particularly on biodiversity.

But if you did…
It would amount to near on a gigatonne of CO2 sucked up per annum.

CO2 or food then. Can’t have both.

Please read more carefully. The 50000000 hectares I mention is well-watered arable land NOT currently cropped or forested. This project wouldn’t decrease food output.

Well there is no land that fits that description here and probably most of WA.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

CO2 or food then. Can’t have both.

Please read more carefully. The 50000000 hectares I mention is well-watered arable land NOT currently cropped or forested. This project wouldn’t decrease food output.

Well there is no land that fits that description here and probably most of WA.

Especially if you consider livestock as food, but if you were a vegan I can see the reasoning of dv.

A considerable amount of blue gums were planted 10-25 years ago that put much agricultural land out of production. Then the timber company went broke and in some areas fires virtually destroyed these artificial forests, which are slowly being felled and made into woodchips (as was originally intended). However the land is still out of production and one can only question the durability of paper to sequester CO2.

Some farmers after years of no production, bulldozed the trees into rows that were eventually burnt (not a good CO2 outcome), others have left them on their land without payment and non-producing in the hope some day someone will want to buy them, meanwhile praying they are not burnt down. At least with a natural forest you get regeneration to re absorb the CO2, which you don’t get (or want) with farmed trees.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Please read more carefully. The 50000000 hectares I mention is well-watered arable land NOT currently cropped or forested. This project wouldn’t decrease food output.

Well there is no land that fits that description here and probably most of WA.

Especially if you consider livestock as food, but if you were a vegan I can see the reasoning of dv.

A considerable amount of blue gums were planted 10-25 years ago that put much agricultural land out of production. Then the timber company went broke and in some areas fires virtually destroyed these artificial forests, which are slowly being felled and made into woodchips (as was originally intended). However the land is still out of production and one can only question the durability of paper to sequester CO2.

Some farmers after years of no production, bulldozed the trees into rows that were eventually burnt (not a good CO2 outcome), others have left them on their land without payment and non-producing in the hope some day someone will want to buy them, meanwhile praying they are not burnt down. At least with a natural forest you get regeneration to re absorb the CO2, which you don’t get (or want) with farmed trees.

Bluegums next to our covenanted land were harvested in 2000 for Bowater Scott. Apparently at the time there was a shortage. That plot was let coppice and has recently been harvested again. Some of the area is being replanted in pine now.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

To be clear though I’m not saying that 50000000 hectares of plantation would be without negative effects, particularly on biodiversity.

But if you did…
It would amount to near on a gigatonne of CO2 sucked up per annum.

CO2 or food then. Can’t have both.

Well, okay. Right now we have a bit too much CO2 so if it down to food or CO2, we’d probably go without CO2.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

CO2 or food then. Can’t have both.

Please read more carefully. The 50000000 hectares I mention is well-watered arable land NOT currently cropped or forested. This project wouldn’t decrease food output.

Well there is no land that fits that description here and probably most of WA.

There are approximately 50000000 hectares that fit that description.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Please read more carefully. The 50000000 hectares I mention is well-watered arable land NOT currently cropped or forested. This project wouldn’t decrease food output.

Well there is no land that fits that description here and probably most of WA.

There are approximately 50000000 hectares that fit that description.

Rubbish, the land is currently used for food production, you know those silly looking four legged things. Like I said food or CO2, you can’t have both.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Please read more carefully. The 50000000 hectares I mention is well-watered arable land NOT currently cropped or forested. This project wouldn’t decrease food output.

Well there is no land that fits that description here and probably most of WA.

There are approximately 50000000 hectares that fit that description.

By the way dv that works out to 500,000 sq. km. If you find only a small fraction you will be richer than your wildest dreams.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Well there is no land that fits that description here and probably most of WA.

There are approximately 50000000 hectares that fit that description.

By the way dv that works out to 500,000 sq. km. If you find only a small fraction you will be richer than your wildest dreams.

On the most conservative estimate, the perimeter of Australia is 25,800 km, so for 500,000 sq km. There would be a strip of land 1 kg wide, going around the perimeter of the continent over 19 times, in other words a strip of land over 19 km wide circulating Australia sitting there doing nothing. Interesting, but I think you might be wrong by a big margin.

TING TING
Oooh there goes the microwave.
Fresh popcorn there if anyone wants it.

Peak Warming Man said:

TING TING
Oooh there goes the microwave.
Fresh popcorn there if anyone wants it.

Don’t think so, very difficult to argue against the facts, even for dv.

I;d like to say way way back then in sssf history I took a lot of flak in the Gunns thread for being alarmist and wrong.

I was right.

sarahs mum said:

I;d like to say way way back then in sssf history I took a lot of flak in the Gunns thread for being alarmist and wrong.

I was right.

:-)

sarahs mum said:

I;d like to say way way back then in sssf history I took a lot of flak in the Gunns thread for being alarmist and wrong.

I was right.

Never got any flak from me.

sarahs mum said:

I;d like to say way way back then in sssf history I took a lot of flak in the Gunns thread for being alarmist and wrong.

I was right.

I have no memory of this event. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

I;d like to say way way back then in sssf history I took a lot of flak in the Gunns thread for being alarmist and wrong.

I was right.

I have no memory of this event. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

The Gunns pulp mill. That was rail roaded into a project of state significance. That was predicated on dodgy people and dodgy figures. That heralded the MIS schemes. That were pushed by Eric Abetz. And all failed. And many small investors and farmers were taken to the cleaners.

sarahs mum said:

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

I;d like to say way way back then in sssf history I took a lot of flak in the Gunns thread for being alarmist and wrong.

I was right.

I have no memory of this event. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

The Gunns pulp mill. That was rail roaded into a project of state significance. That was predicated on dodgy people and dodgy figures. That heralded the MIS schemes. That were pushed by Eric Abetz. And all failed. And many small investors and farmers were taken to the cleaners.

small investors and farmers were taken to the cleaners….isn’t that how capitalism is meant to work? Concentrate the wealth into as few hands as possible. Just look at how the LNP are changing how Australia’s water is used…

ruby said:

sarahs mum said:

Michael V said:

I have no memory of this event. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

The Gunns pulp mill. That was rail roaded into a project of state significance. That was predicated on dodgy people and dodgy figures. That heralded the MIS schemes. That were pushed by Eric Abetz. And all failed. And many small investors and farmers were taken to the cleaners.

small investors and farmers were taken to the cleaners….isn’t that how capitalism is meant to work? Concentrate the wealth into as few hands as possible. Just look at how the LNP are changing how Australia’s water is used…

I remember my right winged brother in law thought I was speaking a lot of shit. But one day it was revealed to me that one of his golf mates had talked to that bank about taking a whack of money he had and borrowing some more money and buying a little rental flat on the beaches. He walked out with a large investment in Gunns MIS’s. I told them I thought he would have been crazy to put all his eggs into that basket a few years ago but with the way it was looking now he was kissing it goodbye. And a few months later it was kissed goodbye. But the investment consultant made money.

sarahs mum said:

ruby said:

sarahs mum said:

The Gunns pulp mill. That was rail roaded into a project of state significance. That was predicated on dodgy people and dodgy figures. That heralded the MIS schemes. That were pushed by Eric Abetz. And all failed. And many small investors and farmers were taken to the cleaners.

small investors and farmers were taken to the cleaners….isn’t that how capitalism is meant to work? Concentrate the wealth into as few hands as possible. Just look at how the LNP are changing how Australia’s water is used…

I remember my right winged brother in law thought I was speaking a lot of shit. But one day it was revealed to me that one of his golf mates had talked to that bank about taking a whack of money he had and borrowing some more money and buying a little rental flat on the beaches. He walked out with a large investment in Gunns MIS’s. I told them I thought he would have been crazy to put all his eggs into that basket a few years ago but with the way it was looking now he was kissing it goodbye. And a few months later it was kissed goodbye. But the investment consultant made money.

There is another aspect much overlooked in that genuine nurseries were forced to sell their products at a much reduced rate because these MIS schemes had the price of tubestock at rock bottom prices. This caused people like me to quit supplying trees because I could not compete pricewise. Then the MIS nurseries just folded up like card houses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng