Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Fri Sep 17 10:59:54 EST 1999

Larry Caldwell wrote:

> In article <7rq5fa$qgc$1 at>, truffler1635 at
> writes:
> > One way to reduce global impact of increased CO2 is to plant more trees,
> > especially fast-growing trees. A key to growing such trees is to
> > inoculate mycorrhizal fungi with them.
> This is a common misconception.  In fact, forests have nearly no effect
> on the buildup of atmospheric CO2.  A quick trip to the almanac will show
> why:
> In 1990, the world consumed the equivalent of 22,906,400,000,000
> kilograms of coal.  If previous trends hold true, current fossil fuels
> burned is approximately 26,907,980,000,000 kilograms of coal a year.
> Since a cubic meter of wood is very nearly 1000 kilograms, but wood only
> holds about 20% of the carbon of coal per kilogram, you can easily see
> that we would have to produce 134,539,900,000 cubic meters (about
> 8,000,000,000,000,000 board feet, yeah that's eight quadrillion board
> feet) of wood products a year and preserve it so it didn't burn or decay,
> which would return the carbon to the biosphere.
> Now, an acre of rapidly growing second growth forest can perhaps produce
> 1000 board feet a year, which means all you need is 8 trillion acres of
> second growth to ameliorate fossil fuel consumption.  That is 12 billion
> square miles (34 x 10^9 square kilometers for people who use sensible
> units).  If you covered Europe and Asia with nothing but rapidly growing
> second growth forest, you might just manage it.  Of course, if you take
> awkward things like mountains, deserts and the arctic circle into
> account, you would need to convert every productive bit of land in
> Europe, Asia, North America and South America into nothing but rapidly
> growing second growth forests.  As soon as the entire human race starves
> to death, you can let things go back to nature.
> You may as well piss in the ocean.  Forestry isn't going to stop global
> warming.
> -- Larry

Hmmm..... Now, now Larry. You can think beyond that, can't you? <G>

The point is that WE ARE LOSING FOREST LAND and losing forest land to EVER
MORE URBAN SPRAWL means that all that new urban sprawl is going to produce
more CO2. We have to STOP THE SPRAWL, and keep that forest land as forest
land. It's not that the trees will be able to eat up all the CO2, but that
keeping the trees and stopping the sprawl will slow down the increase in CO2.

Forestry is only part of the solution but a major part because properly
managing the land is part of what the most intelligent species on any planet
ought to be doing. Our nation now has a 7 trillion dollar GNP, but almost NONE
of that vast wealth goes to GOOD LAND MANAGEMENT. It's a crime- against the
Earth and against ourselves as part of the Earth.

Any attempt to stop the ongoing destruction of the atmosphere must begin with
good land management- the O2 in our atmosphere all came from plants. Fewer
plants- less O2.

Joe "Che" Zorzin

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list