EF! Fined $1million in Idaho
masher at tusc.net
Thu Nov 21 17:32:24 EST 1996
D. Braun <dbraun at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Who proposed destroying every plant on the planet? When trees are cut
> > down, new ones are planted. The newer trees actually grow faster, and
> > perform far better at CO2 uptake and oxygen creation than old-growth
> > forests.
> Propaganda. The issue is storage of carbon in old-growth (and primary
> forests), which can be several times greater on an area basis. I have
> made this point before.
If the issue is carbon storage, then why do we hear all the scare stories
about loss of trees affecting oxygen levels?
And, carbon uptake is far greater in new growths than old. Most harvested
timber is not burned, and therefore keeps its carbon content indefinitely;
the newly planted trees pull far more carbon from the air than the older
trees they replace. Old trees that are not harvested eventually begin to
rot, thereby surrendering their carbon back to the environment.
> > I'll explain the logic behind this, using small words. An opionion was
> > forth that, because environmentalists (sorry for the long one there)
> > not motivated by money, that they must be right and good and true. I
> > disproved the statement by showing a contradictory member, i.e., serial
> > murderers. I made no claims as to how many environmentalists were in >
> fact serial murderers, mind you.
> > Yes, but what is best for a roach, or a spotted owl, or a white pine
> > is not neccesarily whats best for humans. And, in many cases,
> > environmentalists are actually harming the planet they claim to
> More pure bs. Please support these assertions.
Which allegation? That roaches are not better than humans? I find that
one self-evident, I'm afraid. Or do you want me to document some of the
many cases in which environmental organizations have harmed the
masher at tusc.net
More information about the Ag-forst