Carbon dioxide – whom to blame? (1)

May 2011
291
68
Outside of Rosewell
#1
By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation.
The reason that logging is so bad for the climate is that when trees are felled they release the carbon they are storing into the atmosphere, where it mingles with greenhouse gases from other sources and contributes to global warming accordingly. The upshot is that we should be doing as much to prevent deforestation as we are to increase fuel efficiency and reduce automobile usage.
….
Any realistic plan to reduce global warming pollution sufficiently—and in time—to avoid dangerous consequences must rely in part on preserving tropical forests,” reports EDF. But it’s hard to convince the poor residents of the Amazon basin and other tropical regions of the world to stop cutting down trees when the forests are still worth more dead than alive.

Deforestation and Its Extreme Effect on Global Warming: Scientific American
 
Likes: 2 people
Apr 2011
14,942
5,806
My mother's womb, of course.
#2
The upshot is that we should be doing as much to prevent deforestation as we are to increase fuel efficiency and reduce automobile usage.
….
Any realistic plan to reduce global warming pollution sufficiently—and in time—to avoid dangerous consequences must rely in part on preserving tropical forests,” reports EDF. But it’s hard to convince the poor residents of the Amazon basin and other tropical regions of the world to stop cutting down trees when the forests are still worth more dead than alive.
Good points about deforestation. I try to cut back on paper usage as much as possible. But regarding your first sentence, there is a flip side to that argument. Some people say an increase in fuel efficiency in cars will encourage people to drive more, for gasoline and travel costs will be cheaper. But it is better than fuel-inefficient cars.
 
Apr 2012
9,970
2,644
Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
#4
Good points about deforestation. I try to cut back on paper usage as much as possible. But regarding your first sentence, there is a flip side to that argument. Some people say an increase in fuel efficiency in cars will encourage people to drive more, for gasoline and travel costs will be cheaper. But it is better than fuel-inefficient cars.
Thank you. You enable me to increase my paper usage with no net increase in paper usage.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,664
63,149
So. Md.
#5
Cutting back on consumption of beef would help since a lot of the deforestation occurs for raising beef.
 
Likes: 1 person

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,201
america
#6
Trees can be replanted.

The problem, of course, is that they are clearing this land for LIVING space, farms, ranches, etc.

We need to encourage more people to use forrests in their basic city and architectural designs. Takes a tad bit more money and effort, but...not only do we keep trees...we keep trees around US. (Shade in the Summer=FAR less energy off the grids....)

In America, we see more and more of this, but...we leveled the forrests of the midwest over a hundred years ago. Now, that is some of the best Agricultural land in the world. (Whether this world warms, cools, or goes all haywire...humans gotta eat....)

Lots of other "Green" organisms out there that can help, even after the forrests are gone: Algae, Grass, etc.

Still...we, as a species, need to find ways to limit deforrestation in parts of the world. Don't ask me how, but...well, what if we had a "George Washington Carver" (OR, a whole group of them!), who could figure out ways and methods to use the existing forrests for foods, medicines, etc?

DEforrestation really is not the problem. NOT RE-forresting many areas, is the problem. Forrests grow back, if allowed.
 

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,201
america
#7
Cutting back on consumption of beef would help since a lot of the deforestation occurs for raising beef.
How do we do that, though?

Shaming people who eat beef? (I honestly do not think that will do much....)

INFORMING people that there are better meats out there, and, attempting to expand diets to include greater variety? (That IS working...slowly, but surely. Still...people like beef...)

Making laws, that limit the consuption of beef, or, additional taxes/fees on beef products? (I reject that, outright. We would be paying $25.00 for a pound of beef, while paying taxes, so that the elites could eat prized beef on our dime....)
 
May 2011
291
68
Outside of Rosewell
#8
We need to encourage more people to use forrests in their basic city and architectural designs.... Forrests grow back, if allowed.
Rainforests are not your usual forests. They live fast, they “eat” a lot, and their main food is carbon dioxide. They are the second best (after oceans) carbon sink of Earth, and they do not regrow. Their importance cannot be overestimated.
 
Likes: 1 person
Apr 2012
9,970
2,644
Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
#9
How do we do that, though?

Shaming people who eat beef? (I honestly do not think that will do much....)

INFORMING people that there are better meats out there, and, attempting to expand diets to include greater variety? (That IS working...slowly, but surely. Still...people like beef...)

Making laws, that limit the consuption of beef, or, additional taxes/fees on beef products? (I reject that, outright. We would be paying $25.00 for a pound of beef, while paying taxes, so that the elites could eat prized beef on our dime....)
Shame on you! Beef eater!

BeefeaterBeefeaterBeefeater!

(You're right. Doesn't seem to be working.)
 

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,201
america
#10
Rainforests are not your usual forests. They live fast, they “eat” a lot, and their main food is carbon dioxide. They are the second best (after oceans) carbon sink of Earth, and they do not regrow. Their importance cannot be overestimated.
I agree with you, but...they CAN be "Regrown." Although, I understand your point, as much of that underbrush, vines, and all kinds of other "green" stuff is a large part of the biomass. THAT can regrow, as well, but....it all takes time. (And often, even when Rainforrests are kept, or, regrown...that part is still curtailed, so that humans can move about, etc.)

The problem, is that they are being cleared for agricultural/industrial/living space purposes, so, once gone, they are not allowed to return.

Wave a magic wand, and take humanity off this globe, entirely, and this rock gets super-green within 20 years.....

We just need to figure out how to do it, without removing humans from the equation.....