Mr. Kittler is to be commended for his attempt to describe a problem and resolution without really offending anyone who would gain from maintaining the status quo.
Several points: 1) Forests are natural and well distributed carbon sinks as long as the climate is stable and the trees do not die. Old forests hold lots of carbon, but they leak that carbon in several ways that are not developed in the paper. Official avoidance of these leaks result in discussions like this being more fluff than substance. 2) A recent paper from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies by Kristof Covey suggests that wet wood, living or dead, has the potential to leak methane periodically. This possibility needs detailed study now! Methane when released in quantity has very significant greenhouse gas effects. Whatever the increase in greenhouse gas effect is, 20x, 100x, 250x or something in between, that number is a close representation of what the number of CO2 molecules recovered must be to counter each molecule of methane released. This same consideration must be presented to those who wish to use natural gas, fossil methane, as a "clean" fuel. All of the natural gas leaks that are associated with its acquisition, distribution and use must some how also be countered with similar counter-measures. 3) There is little discussion of the impact of energy use on the social structure or mindset of people - the true source of the problem. The transport of anything very far changes the dynamics of community life - transport of biomass very far from where it was grown changes the utility of forest management for the locality. Applauding large scale use of biomass as anything other than a temporary value generator is counter productive. We need to be focusing on *scope rather than scale*. Human communities need to form around resource centers rather than taking resources to population centers. 4) Official policies need to be based on the source of the problem and must not be reactionary and misdirected. The "endangered species act" misses the the true problem: *HUMAN RELEASE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM PERMANENT STORAGE FOR MONETARY BENEFIT OF A FEW.* There are many other examples that could be cited but the implementation of this act specifically skirts the true sources of the problem and may in fact further destabilize those functions that are potential amelioration agents. 5) There is no mention of terms, "carbon negative", charcoal, or biochar. This suggests that the author fully accepts the mantra that forests are stable and immune to climate change and that the use of forests as carbon storage is an appropriate end for the discussion (even if that is excessively complicated). The bookkeeping necessitated by such thinking is more a make work project than doing anything of lasting value. We need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere NOW and keep more additions from occurring until such time as the atmospheric balance can again be maintained by nature. Forests offer carbon negative ways to do this. Carbon negative energy recovery resulting in charcoal formation is one way to configure carbon for such long term storage with multiple positive outcomes. Such activity should not be able to be "mined" as a value producing activity to be exploited by "investors" who never intend to live close to the point of origin of the raw material. 6) Using wood as a structural material in near natural form is carbon negative as long as the wood does not decompose. It is not appropriate to continue to build cities using wood while calling that a sustainable alternative. Such use may not even remove any net carbon from the atmosphere and it certainly does not change the way society perceives its main activities. Change will occur when lifestyles change to ways that enable people to be less dependent on continuous release of carbon dioxide. I suggest that the article needs to be.rewritten to reflect the reality of the times and that it then go to the IPCC as the basis for their next report in which the call for real carbon negative forest treatment. Alan Page -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
