EF! Fined $1million in Idaho
dbraun at u.washington.edu
Thu Nov 21 18:22:32 EST 1996
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Don Staples wrote:
Don: I have already addressed the point below, about CO2 and old-growth
vs. plantations, and it is dishonest of you to keep bringing up your
point. Your point is factual propaganda--- the issue is not that young
stands fix more CO2 /ha/yr than old-growth, but that old-growth has
greater storage. Conversion leads to greater CO2 in the atmosphere. This
has been scientifically documented.
> I am glad to see you agree that we need more trees, young vigorous trees,
that produce more O and reduce CO2. These young vigorous trees will of course
be in replacement of existing stagnant less vigorous stands with fewer stems
per acre. Welcome aboard!
> Increase CO2 levels are real interesting, in that they seem to rate directly
to industrialization and increased fossile fuel use rather than to tree loss.
Not the foresters myopic vision, but the myopic vision of you, the consumer,
that wants more of everything.
As a matter of fact, loss of forest cover, and conversion of primary
forest to younger forests, which are then managed on short rotations, is
recognized as a significant factor in the change in carbon ballance.
More information about the Ag-forst