To: DuncanWaring
Okay, what exactly is you're definition of NET ZERO???
If there is a natural cycle wherein growing trees suck up CO2 and dying trees release it, then overall there is a NET ZERO effect on the CO2 levels.
If you chop down the trees and burn them and disrupt the cycle, then you are having a positive effect on the cycle. (Enviro-whackos will call it a negative effect on the environment, naturally.)
We're arguing perspective. Like the guy jogging at 5mph on the top of top travelling 60 mph. If you're on the train, has going 5 mph. If you're on the ground, he's going 65 mph.
TS
30 posted on
06/22/2006 10:44:15 AM PDT by
Tanniker Smith
(I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
To: Tanniker Smith
If there is a natural cycle wherein growing trees suck up CO2 and dying trees release it, then overall there is a NET ZERO effect on the CO2 levels. Soils can sequester carbon for millenia, but the real sink is when those soils get washed into the ocean and consumed by dynoflagellates, which then sink and form deposits of calcium carbonate.
32 posted on
06/22/2006 10:59:53 AM PDT by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
To: Tanniker Smith
If the wood is burned, the only difference is that the CO2 returns to the atmosphere earlier.
Each carbon atom in the cellulose ultimately combines with two oxygen atoms to form CO2. Whether it happens slowly or quickly you end up with the same net effect.
34 posted on
06/22/2006 11:05:37 AM PDT by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: Tanniker Smith; DuncanWaring
Okay, what exactly is you're definition of NET ZERO??? Net Zero = Al Gore
40 posted on
06/22/2006 1:10:53 PM PDT by
PsyOp
(Fear, not kindness, restrains the wicked – Metus improbos compescit, non clementia. – Syrus, Maxims.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson