BoobiJoy,

How about a link to your claim about the environmentalists? Controlled burns to clear undergrowth and reduce risk of forest fires has been sound forest management for years. It is something the environmentalists and forest industry both generally agree on. Healthy forests are great for both groups. The only bone of contention is that the environmentalists like their forests with the trees standing tall instead of cut up and on ships heading to China.

This new study just quantifies the CO2 emissions. There is no way to politicize this one unless you are a true tinfoil hatter or are so far up Glen Beck's bum that you just have to scream something about global warming.

There is no way to politicize this one...

Well, of course there is. You are commenting on the very thread that politicized this.

Beetle,

Did you catch the part after the word 'unless'?

Axe-
I got your point, and it was well stated. My comment was directed at "Boojiboy".

"The only bone of contention is that the environmentalists like their forests with the trees standing tall ..."

Trees are an agricultural crop, like corn, soybeans and oranges. There is nothing sacred about it, and if you want a nice stand of trees to enjoy there are millions of acres awaiting the chainsaw.

Part of nature's forest 'management' is the occasional, devastating fire to clear out everything and allow new trees to grow.

Harvesting trees for productive uses does the same thing.

#1 | Posted by axe at 2010-03-18 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag: Biscuit fire in Southern Oregon took out 1/2 million acres. Much of it old growth that WAS NOT managed at all genius.

If you come over to the Sisters area only recently did the environmentalists back off and allow management to clear out the endless dead underbrush that had accumulated through the years untouched.

Bush administration had pushed for better management and was shut down.

But if Al Gores friends say its okay everything changes.

I don't watch Glenn Beck, I don't watch Fox News I don't listen to Rush rim job. I do enjoy NPR.

But I have common sense and I don't forget. And here in Oregon this was a big deal.

Controlled burning ie. letting some fires run their natural course or deliberately burning sections of forest in order to make fire breaks has been a staple part of forest management fer a while now.

The argument used for reckless and wide scale use of this strategy is that old growth forests are neutral to the AGW equation has been mis-stated (Old growth forests are NOT carbon neutral) by some in the past (primarily RWers unsurprisingly enuff) but the fact remains that new growth does play a more active role in counteracting the greenhouse effect.

Be Well.

Dethspud speak truth.

The older the forest, the less is sequestered.

If you accept the Laws of Physics, and the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed, the tree will release the same amount of carbon no matter how you get rid of the tree. If you cut it down and burn it, the sum total of carbon will be released quickly. Let the tree die and turn into soil, the carbon goes slowly.

Wouldn't it be better to let nature take it's course with carbon than spiking the levels by burning it off?

Controlled burning to manage wildfires is OK, but to fight GW?

A tree's life cycle has far more photosynthesis in the first half of life than in the last half as growth stabilizes and later decay sets in.

To me the best course of action would be to have a controlled harvest schedule where once the trees reach a certain age, they are cut down and used for housing products. Once they are part of a home, in theory their carbon is sequestered for a long time. Now replant what you harvested, and in the next growth cycle the young trees will be doing their thing with photosynthesis pulling CO2 out of the atmposphere and

oh

wait

thats what we do already.