https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-15/carbon-emissions-native-forestry-report-wilderness-society/101151838

Summary: this report indicates native forest logging is the industry with the highest GHG emissions in Tasmania. This information is normally disguised by the fact that logging is normally combine with the negative emissions (carbon sink) from the forest estate as a whole.

Says the report. I haven’t fact checked it.

dv said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-15/carbon-emissions-native-forestry-report-wilderness-society/101151838

Summary: this report indicates native forest logging is the industry with the highest GHG emissions in Tasmania. This information is normally disguised by the fact that logging is normally combine with the negative emissions (carbon sink) from the forest estate as a whole.

Says the report. I haven’t fact checked it.

How does that work, seems completely misleading.

Hmm we chop down trees with emissions producing machines but it’s negated by the tree’s we haven’t yet cut down.

dv said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-15/carbon-emissions-native-forestry-report-wilderness-society/101151838

Summary: this report indicates native forest logging is the industry with the highest GHG emissions in Tasmania. This information is normally disguised by the fact that logging is normally combine with the negative emissions (carbon sink) from the forest estate as a whole.

Says the report. I haven’t fact checked it.

Well, if you don’t log the forest then you don’t sequester carbon.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-15/carbon-emissions-native-forestry-report-wilderness-society/101151838

Summary: this report indicates native forest logging is the industry with the highest GHG emissions in Tasmania. This information is normally disguised by the fact that logging is normally combine with the negative emissions (carbon sink) from the forest estate as a whole.

Says the report. I haven’t fact checked it.

Well, if you don’t log the forest then you don’t sequester carbon.

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-15/carbon-emissions-native-forestry-report-wilderness-society/101151838

Summary: this report indicates native forest logging is the industry with the highest GHG emissions in Tasmania. This information is normally disguised by the fact that logging is normally combine with the negative emissions (carbon sink) from the forest estate as a whole.

Says the report. I haven’t fact checked it.

Well, if you don’t log the forest then you don’t sequester carbon.

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

No it is not!

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Well, if you don’t log the forest then you don’t sequester carbon.

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

No it is not!

What are they?

Schrodingers’s Trees?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

No it is not!

What are they?

Schrodingers’s Trees?

only if you don’t go into the forest.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Well, if you don’t log the forest then you don’t sequester carbon.

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

No it is not!

grabs popcorn

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Well, if you don’t log the forest then you don’t sequester carbon.

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

No it is not!

Yeah it is bro. It is standing carbon that is out of the atmosphere, slowly drawing more carbon out of the atmosphere as it grows.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

No it is not!

Yeah it is bro. It is standing carbon that is out of the atmosphere, slowly drawing more carbon out of the atmosphere as it grows.

Is it updated as it grows, how much carbon it captures

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

No it is not!

Yeah it is bro. It is standing carbon that is out of the atmosphere, slowly drawing more carbon out of the atmosphere as it grows.

The questions are (I suppose)

Does logging potentially allow a greter rate of sequestration/m2
Do they do the logging in Tasmania in a way that achieves this aim?
(also: are there other environmental problems and/or advantages that need to be considered?)

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The thing is, the carbon in an old tree is already sequestered…

No it is not!

Yeah it is bro. It is standing carbon that is out of the atmosphere, slowly drawing more carbon out of the atmosphere as it grows.

Ya. Shitloads of carbon..

..billions of cubic shitloads more precisely

I thought it a good explanation as to why sequestration of carbon in trees is not valid as the vast amounts of waste of timber that is left to rot on the ground, plus the use of the timber harvested in short term applications, leaves only a tiny proportion of sequester timber that will survive for 50 years or more.

The term renewable resource is extremely misleading as the very act of harvesting the timber is so destructive to other species and the area is left with soils turned over and the branches and less attractive timber left to rot. If anyone has investigated these previously clear felled areas, it is just a bloody big mess that will take decades for any type of use.

PermeateFree said:

I thought it a good explanation as to why sequestration of carbon in trees is not valid as the vast amounts of waste of timber that is left to rot on the ground, plus the use of the timber harvested in short term applications, leaves only a tiny proportion of sequester timber that will survive for 50 years or more.

The term renewable resource is extremely misleading as the very act of harvesting the timber is so destructive to other species and the area is left with soils turned over and the branches and less attractive timber left to rot. If anyone has investigated these previously clear felled areas, it is just a bloody big mess that will take decades for any type of use.

agreed.

specially after a good napalming.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

I thought it a good explanation as to why sequestration of carbon in trees is not valid as the vast amounts of waste of timber that is left to rot on the ground, plus the use of the timber harvested in short term applications, leaves only a tiny proportion of sequester timber that will survive for 50 years or more.

The term renewable resource is extremely misleading as the very act of harvesting the timber is so destructive to other species and the area is left with soils turned over and the branches and less attractive timber left to rot. If anyone has investigated these previously clear felled areas, it is just a bloody big mess that will take decades for any type of use.

agreed.

specially after a good napalming.

Yes that is yet another destructive action, as burning logs on the ground with sterilise the soil and kill off any living organisms that might have survived the earlier devastation. We do such terrible things to nature with little or no thought about the consequences to anything other than our immediate benefit.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

I thought it a good explanation as to why sequestration of carbon in trees is not valid as the vast amounts of waste of timber that is left to rot on the ground, plus the use of the timber harvested in short term applications, leaves only a tiny proportion of sequester timber that will survive for 50 years or more.

The term renewable resource is extremely misleading as the very act of harvesting the timber is so destructive to other species and the area is left with soils turned over and the branches and less attractive timber left to rot. If anyone has investigated these previously clear felled areas, it is just a bloody big mess that will take decades for any type of use.

agreed.

specially after a good napalming.

Yes that is yet another destructive action, as burning logs on the ground with sterilise the soil and kill off any living organisms that might have survived the earlier devastation. We do such terrible things to nature with little or no thought about the consequences to anything other than our immediate benefit.

Cutting trees down for the wood is the least value they provide long term

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

I thought it a good explanation as to why sequestration of carbon in trees is not valid as the vast amounts of waste of timber that is left to rot on the ground, plus the use of the timber harvested in short term applications, leaves only a tiny proportion of sequester timber that will survive for 50 years or more.

The term renewable resource is extremely misleading as the very act of harvesting the timber is so destructive to other species and the area is left with soils turned over and the branches and less attractive timber left to rot. If anyone has investigated these previously clear felled areas, it is just a bloody big mess that will take decades for any type of use.

agreed.

specially after a good napalming.

Yes that is yet another destructive action, as burning logs on the ground with sterilise the soil and kill off any living organisms that might have survived the earlier devastation. We do such terrible things to nature with little or no thought about the consequences to anything other than our immediate benefit.

I’d like to offer a sliver of hope. I know of a lady carefully documenting an area near Warrnambool. This area was ripped and planted with pines back in the 1960s(?) as a school plantation. When that was a way for schools to raise money. They would have been harvested some 20 years ago or so (I’m not sure exactly when). It was then left to itself. In the last few years a lot of native herbs and orchids are starting to show up again. I find it gratifying that these plants are so resilient. Much as I hate the current overuse of the word.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

agreed.

specially after a good napalming.

Yes that is yet another destructive action, as burning logs on the ground with sterilise the soil and kill off any living organisms that might have survived the earlier devastation. We do such terrible things to nature with little or no thought about the consequences to anything other than our immediate benefit.

I’d like to offer a sliver of hope. I know of a lady carefully documenting an area near Warrnambool. This area was ripped and planted with pines back in the 1960s(?) as a school plantation. When that was a way for schools to raise money. They would have been harvested some 20 years ago or so (I’m not sure exactly when). It was then left to itself. In the last few years a lot of native herbs and orchids are starting to show up again. I find it gratifying that these plants are so resilient. Much as I hate the current overuse of the word.

In a Melbourne suburb a friend of my wife would mow her lawn regularly and did so for over twenty years. We visited one day in spring and found a huge colony of greenhood orchids coming up where she mowed, which when told, she decided to leave and enjoy the mass of blooms that appeared a few days later. She had unknowingly mown them down every year, probably because the area had been built up for many years, so a complete surprise to all. I put it down to the tubers in the soil that permitted their survival, which was probably what happened in Warrnambol. They really want to live despite what we do.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes that is yet another destructive action, as burning logs on the ground with sterilise the soil and kill off any living organisms that might have survived the earlier devastation. We do such terrible things to nature with little or no thought about the consequences to anything other than our immediate benefit.

I’d like to offer a sliver of hope. I know of a lady carefully documenting an area near Warrnambool. This area was ripped and planted with pines back in the 1960s(?) as a school plantation. When that was a way for schools to raise money. They would have been harvested some 20 years ago or so (I’m not sure exactly when). It was then left to itself. In the last few years a lot of native herbs and orchids are starting to show up again. I find it gratifying that these plants are so resilient. Much as I hate the current overuse of the word.

In a Melbourne suburb a friend of my wife would mow her lawn regularly and did so for over twenty years. We visited one day in spring and found a huge colony of greenhood orchids coming up where she mowed, which when told, she decided to leave and enjoy the mass of blooms that appeared a few days later. She had unknowingly mown them down every year, probably because the area had been built up for many years, so a complete surprise to all. I put it down to the tubers in the soil that permitted their survival, which was probably what happened in Warrnambol. They really want to live despite what we do.

They’ve been doing that for longer than we have been around.

sarahs mum said:

Mordor cam

wookiemeister said:

sarahs mum said:

Mordor cam

:)

I always put it down to the orcs.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

I’d like to offer a sliver of hope. I know of a lady carefully documenting an area near Warrnambool. This area was ripped and planted with pines back in the 1960s(?) as a school plantation. When that was a way for schools to raise money. They would have been harvested some 20 years ago or so (I’m not sure exactly when). It was then left to itself. In the last few years a lot of native herbs and orchids are starting to show up again. I find it gratifying that these plants are so resilient. Much as I hate the current overuse of the word.

In a Melbourne suburb a friend of my wife would mow her lawn regularly and did so for over twenty years. We visited one day in spring and found a huge colony of greenhood orchids coming up where she mowed, which when told, she decided to leave and enjoy the mass of blooms that appeared a few days later. She had unknowingly mown them down every year, probably because the area had been built up for many years, so a complete surprise to all. I put it down to the tubers in the soil that permitted their survival, which was probably what happened in Warrnambol. They really want to live despite what we do.

They’ve been doing that for longer than we have been around.

Maybe, but it was just unusual that the property owner had never noticed them in the middle of her lawn. We were surprised too to find such a large colony in a typical suburban garden that had been so transformed from the original bush.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

In a Melbourne suburb a friend of my wife would mow her lawn regularly and did so for over twenty years. We visited one day in spring and found a huge colony of greenhood orchids coming up where she mowed, which when told, she decided to leave and enjoy the mass of blooms that appeared a few days later. She had unknowingly mown them down every year, probably because the area had been built up for many years, so a complete surprise to all. I put it down to the tubers in the soil that permitted their survival, which was probably what happened in Warrnambol. They really want to live despite what we do.

They’ve been doing that for longer than we have been around.

Maybe, but it was just unusual that the property owner had never noticed them in the middle of her lawn. We were surprised too to find such a large colony in a typical suburban garden that had been so transformed from the original bush.

Non-disturbace of the soil had a lot to do with it. Also the type of lawn grass. By lawn was it simply the natural grass kept mown down or was it a seed lawn or runner type?

At my location, the mallee was pushed over and the land occasionally ploughed to grow fodder crops. Otherwise used as a grazing area for at least 50 years. There are no remnant orchids that I’ve seen. However there are hundreds of fringe lilies and forest germander, Scaevola, Halgania and Ptilotus spathulatus under the weeds.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

They’ve been doing that for longer than we have been around.

Maybe, but it was just unusual that the property owner had never noticed them in the middle of her lawn. We were surprised too to find such a large colony in a typical suburban garden that had been so transformed from the original bush.

Non-disturbace of the soil had a lot to do with it. Also the type of lawn grass. By lawn was it simply the natural grass kept mown down or was it a seed lawn or runner type?

At my location, the mallee was pushed over and the land occasionally ploughed to grow fodder crops. Otherwise used as a grazing area for at least 50 years. There are no remnant orchids that I’ve seen. However there are hundreds of fringe lilies and forest germander, Scaevola, Halgania and Ptilotus spathulatus under the weeds.

No it was an established introduced grass lawn. There was not hint of the lands original vegetation. The tubers are very hardy and when dormant can be handled easily and will survive a considerable amount of rough handling, although they would be reasonably safe 2”-3” under the ground.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Maybe, but it was just unusual that the property owner had never noticed them in the middle of her lawn. We were surprised too to find such a large colony in a typical suburban garden that had been so transformed from the original bush.

Non-disturbace of the soil had a lot to do with it. Also the type of lawn grass. By lawn was it simply the natural grass kept mown down or was it a seed lawn or runner type?

At my location, the mallee was pushed over and the land occasionally ploughed to grow fodder crops. Otherwise used as a grazing area for at least 50 years. There are no remnant orchids that I’ve seen. However there are hundreds of fringe lilies and forest germander, Scaevola, Halgania and Ptilotus spathulatus under the weeds.

No it was an established introduced grass lawn. There was not hint of the lands original vegetation. The tubers are very hardy and when dormant can be handled easily and will survive a considerable amount of rough handling, although they would be reasonably safe 2”-3” under the ground.

I can’t imagine greenhoods suviving under kikiyu or buffalo, even couch.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Non-disturbace of the soil had a lot to do with it. Also the type of lawn grass. By lawn was it simply the natural grass kept mown down or was it a seed lawn or runner type?

At my location, the mallee was pushed over and the land occasionally ploughed to grow fodder crops. Otherwise used as a grazing area for at least 50 years. There are no remnant orchids that I’ve seen. However there are hundreds of fringe lilies and forest germander, Scaevola, Halgania and Ptilotus spathulatus under the weeds.

No it was an established introduced grass lawn. There was not hint of the lands original vegetation. The tubers are very hardy and when dormant can be handled easily and will survive a considerable amount of rough handling, although they would be reasonably safe 2”-3” under the ground.

I can’t imagine greenhoods suviving under kikiyu or buffalo, even couch.

It was just a sown, healthy, compact lawn with no bare patches.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

No it was an established introduced grass lawn. There was not hint of the lands original vegetation. The tubers are very hardy and when dormant can be handled easily and will survive a considerable amount of rough handling, although they would be reasonably safe 2”-3” under the ground.

I can’t imagine greenhoods suviving under kikiyu or buffalo, even couch.

It was just a sown, healthy, compact lawn with no bare patches.

Perfectly understandable then. As usually with seed lawns it is maybe levelled by lightly top dressing and the seed sown close to the surface.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

I can’t imagine greenhoods suviving under kikiyu or buffalo, even couch.

It was just a sown, healthy, compact lawn with no bare patches.

Perfectly understandable then. As usually with seed lawns it is maybe levelled by lightly top dressing and the seed sown close to the surface.

If it is kept mown short enough, the rosettes would likley not get swamped. Obviously it was kept short because she’d never seen the flowers before.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

I can’t imagine greenhoods suviving under kikiyu or buffalo, even couch.

It was just a sown, healthy, compact lawn with no bare patches.

Perfectly understandable then. As usually with seed lawns it is maybe levelled by lightly top dressing and the seed sown close to the surface.

Seeing as she had lived there with her husband for over twenty years and had not noticed them despite mowing the lawn on a regular basis, is I think a little unusual.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

It was just a sown, healthy, compact lawn with no bare patches.

Perfectly understandable then. As usually with seed lawns it is maybe levelled by lightly top dressing and the seed sown close to the surface.

If it is kept mown short enough, the rosettes would likley not get swamped. Obviously it was kept short because she’d never seen the flowers before.

The leaves were within the grass but were visible (think she thought they were weeds) and the stems were mown down before the flowers opened.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

It was just a sown, healthy, compact lawn with no bare patches.

Perfectly understandable then. As usually with seed lawns it is maybe levelled by lightly top dressing and the seed sown close to the surface.

Seeing as she had lived there with her husband for over twenty years and had not noticed them despite mowing the lawn on a regular basis, is I think a little unusual.

Not if she’d been mowing off the flower spikes. The rosettes are difficult to spot unless you know what to look for. If the patch had been big enough and not obscured by lawn grass, then many would have sprayed or dug them up without being aware of their significance.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Perfectly understandable then. As usually with seed lawns it is maybe levelled by lightly top dressing and the seed sown close to the surface.

If it is kept mown short enough, the rosettes would likley not get swamped. Obviously it was kept short because she’d never seen the flowers before.

The leaves were within the grass but were visible (think she thought they were weeds) and the stems were mown down before the flowers opened.

Yes, there are lots of weeds that can easily establish in seed lawns. If they didn’t spread much and weren’t causing problems with the lawn heights and appearance, they’d probably be left alone.

Without logging, and in the absence of a rise in atmospheric CO2, an old growth forest has a zero carbon sequestration rate.
Logging is the easiest and most effective way to sequester carbon.

mollwollfumble said:

Without logging, and in the absence of a rise in atmospheric CO2, an old growth forest has a zero carbon sequestration rate.
Logging is the easiest and most effective way to sequester carbon.

Makes sense doesn’t it that a forest needs CO2 to grow and survive.

Don’t know what else you are trying to say though.

secret decisons

New research from The University of Western Australia has revealed that plants make their own ‘secret’ decisions about how much carbon to release back into the atmosphere via a previously unknown process, a discovery with “profound implications” for the use of plants as carbon stores.

roughbarked said:

secret decisons

New research from The University of Western Australia has revealed that plants make their own ‘secret’ decisions about how much carbon to release back into the atmosphere via a previously unknown process, a discovery with “profound implications” for the use of plants as carbon stores.

I would think there are some very good long-term reasons as to why a plant decides to store the co2 or release it into the environment. From my experience nature does not do fine tuning like this for no reason. I think it would be very beneficial to understand the reason behind the plants manipulation, rather than to just to make them do something to correct our failings.

mollwollfumble said:

Without logging, and in the absence of a rise in atmospheric CO2, an old growth forest has a zero carbon sequestration rate.
Logging is the easiest and most effective way to sequester carbon.

You use only the statistics that support your opinion, rather than to use statistics to gain a greater understanding. As has already been discussed is the enormous wastage of timber to produce a small amount of timber that would still be in use after 50 years, therefore the benefit of sequestering a relative small amount of carbon, as against the widespread destruction of forests that have other and more productive usages other than the highly destructive industrialised scale of timber harvesting.

Higher co2 levels will increase the growth rate of SOME trees, but these are the faster growing broadleaf species that will progressively reduce the light able to reach slower growing species along with lower story ones too. This will eventually result in large forest areas being dominated by just a few species to the detriment of biodiversity.

Lies PF

The-Spectator said:

Lies PF

Aren’t you busy testifying at the congressional investigation into Jan 6?

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

secret decisons

New research from The University of Western Australia has revealed that plants make their own ‘secret’ decisions about how much carbon to release back into the atmosphere via a previously unknown process, a discovery with “profound implications” for the use of plants as carbon stores.

I would think there are some very good long-term reasons as to why a plant decides to store the co2 or release it into the environment. From my experience nature does not do fine tuning like this for no reason. I think it would be very beneficial to understand the reason behind the plants manipulation, rather than to just to make them do something to correct our failings.

Yes.