BioDev 2000 GE (Mutant) Trees Workshop
karl at daviesand.com
Sun Apr 9 15:23:36 EST 2000
truffler1635 at my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38EE923B.2531A970 at daviesand.com>,
> Karl Davies <karl at daviesand.com> wrote:
> > Posted to alt.forestry, bionet.agroforestry, saf-news, nefr-list. These
> > notes are also on the web at
> > http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Health/Mutant_Trees/.
> > They're mostly pulp plantations: eucalyptus and oil palm (particularly
> > in Southeast Asia). There are also carbon sink plantations being used
> > for pollution/carbon offsets. There's no scientific basis to the claims
> > that these plantations really do offset carbon emissions. Some teak and
> > other hardwoods are being planted too, but not so much because there's
> > still a lot left in native forests.
> This is obviously false. The difference between carbon sequestration in
> trees vs. annual plants is a matter of time: trees sequester CO2 for
> years, plants for usually 1 year or less, depending on latitude.
> While trees cannot remove all the added CO2 produced by increased fossil
> fuel emissions, they still remove CO2 for longer-term than another other
> vector, except perhaps CaC04.
I've forwarded your comments on my notes to Mick Petrie and Orin Langelle, two
of the panelists at this workshop. I don't have email addresses for Alvaro
Gonzales or Ricarda Steinbrecher. Hopefully Mick and/or Orin will be able to
respond to your comments, as well as those of John Cawston and Christopher
Concerning your comment above, you might want to check out some of the online
publications by Marland and Schlamadinger. You can find several with
http://www.google.com. Apparently this carbon sequestration business is much
more complicated than some would have us think.
Karl Davies, Practicing Forester
Northeastern Forestry Reformation List Server
More information about the Ag-forst