Lumber Industry / Green Champions' Carbon Loading Gobbledygook
Divining the depths of psychopathy and attendant corporate dissonance production about our collective guilt about the civilizations we destroyed who lived at one with nature in our wild lands
My comment on:
Michael Polanyi on LinkedIn: Feb 8, 2024 (or 9th - all I get there is 5 days ago)
Canada’s forest carbon accounting has a problem with its ledger books. According to Canada’s official GHG inventory, forestry captures more carbon than it emits. But digging into the numbers tells a very different story. https://lnkd.in/eh44wm5F
(https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7161194018784043008/)
My Comment (written in LinkedIn and not posted b/c I ran out of room in the tiny box with the character limit):
I couldn't cognize anything from it - gobbledygook in my opinion.
I can't get my head around carbon dioxide release vs reducing carbon loading as the forest spends half it's time creating carbon gas releases (in carbon dioxide release at night) then should we not cut down all the forests to save ourselves?
The answer is obviously forests - over their lifespan - are net carbon sequester-ers (they are the primary source of black soil) --- so the only thing I can think of that makes any sense in the analysis is that young trees must be net carbon loaders / regenerating forest cuts rot a lot at first (turning the detritus of forestry back into soil by decay and gases) and so in a brief stage (2 years?) after a forest-strip clear-cut, a lot of methane gas and carbon dioxide is released - but that is never stated.
(I went elsewhere* to find out, and green branders at the pop source I when to conflate soil and gas production in this and measure it as high a carbon loading source as fossil fuel consequent release - a real clear signal we’re being played).
Using and growing forests is not the issue - as long as we clear cut in strips (reforests itself through seed drops) - the use of lumber in building for example, is obviously a carbon sink - both because the forest is a carbon sink - in that half the mass of the tree is in the roots - and the other half becomes stick wall housing for the most part - which gets buried in landfill after 30-100 years (depending on the year the building was built - we build new ones to last about 30 years - old were built to last 100 or more - a discussion on how much carbon is loaded from the production process is relevant here).
Obviously transportation and building heating/cooling are the elephants in the room - but there’s been no change there over this period of massive wealth accumulation - that's untouchable apparently - because it effects big fossil fuel energy companies that supply energy to those things and have captured both the environmental movement and the whole of governments and international institutions (like the UN in some part - that is progressing) - in this era of public private partnerships (against the people).
Rejoinders / corrections welcome.
* reference: https://theconversation.com/decaying-forest-wood-releases-a-whopping-10-9-billion-tonnes-of-carbon-each-year-this-will-increase-under-climate-change-164406
^mh