The tile is a typo, and I can't edit it. It should read " not demises,, but perhaps the effect will be demise! California Rep Dana Rohabacher suggests that " trees cause global warming, and that one solution should be to subsidize clear cutting rain forests! Do trees cause global warming? - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com There is o little else to say! Icarus
I think the word you are looking for is Republican, this is was not paying attention in Biology class. I wish I could find one who paid attention in any class.
The diffence is clearing forests of rotting material. That said, the congressmen is suggesting "clear cutting rainforest" . Doesn't any ever alize that ecosystems are connected? Even if you could cut CO2 emissions by clearing old growth forests, does it make any sense? (hint,,,no!) why is that these morons are all to willing to discuss,a nd even discuss funding these crazy ideas that have huge potential unintended consequences, and yet are completely unwilling to discuses actually deal with the root causes! Icarus Ps. It wasn't a Freudian slip, it was an IPad slip. I
Perhaps Rohabacher lacks a clear understanding of the carbon cycle. Gross photosynthesis on land removes about 121 petagrams of CO2 carbon from the air annually. Total decomposition (=respiration) on land returns about 120 petagrams each year. Actually the net accumulation of carbon in the terrestrial part of the cycle is now probably closer to 2 petagrams per year. The marine carbon cycle is similar, with 92 'going in' and 90 'coming out', and also a net accumulation of about 2 petagrams per year. Put these two together, and observe one of the unpaid-for ecosystem services of the earth's biota. Of the 9 or 10 petagrams released from fossil fuel burning, cement production and deforestaion (the big 3), only about half remains in the atmosphere as CO2. But consider a subset of these fluxes (and ignore the others), and one can reach the conclusion that natural biological releases of CO2 far exceed fossil-fuel combustion. Someone with an agenda might not even think that they were commiting a mistake by doing so. For the second, Wired thing, it is completely correct that young forests can do more photosynthesis than old forests. However, all forests grow in soil and in many cases (especially at higher latitudes), these soils contain much more carbon than do the trees. Cut down the trees and the soils respire carbon much faster. It is tricky business to prevent this from happening. My impression is that folks who promote young forests don't know, or choose to ignore it. One can certainly remove some trees, make something 'valuble' from them, or just put them somewhere where the wood won't decompose. Problem there is that we'd have to 'cost in' the fuel required to move the wood around. Having said all that, I'll never object if someone wants to plant a tree. Cut a tree, and then the carbon cycle merits attention. With none of its major components ignored, if you please.
Sadly, no. If he knows that cutting the trees would make things worse, and promotes it anyways, he isn't hypocritical, he is evil.
