BioDev 2000 GE (Mutant) Trees Workshop
truffler1635 at my-deja.com
truffler1635 at my-deja.com
Sun Apr 9 23:05:03 EST 2000
In article <38F0E6C8.65DF5E4D at daviesand.com>,
Karl Davies <karl at daviesand.com> wrote:
> 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.
You're absolutely right, Karl. Iit is more complex than _most_ of us
dream of, whatever our political bent. Geologically, CO2 sequestration
has been an on-going phenomenon since the earth cooled some 4.5-6
billion years ago (or even in the last 4,000+, if you're a creationist,
in which case nuclear weaponry must be something like the wrath of God
During that time, C02 has also been incorporated into a number of rocks,
which we cannot even begin to assess today. For example, limestone if
fossilized CaC04; marble is metaphorphosized limestone; gypsum contains
C02, and sandstones around the globe contain significant amounts of
fossilized bone and seashells, also CaC04 unless replaced by other
In ocean waters around the world, it has been brought to my attention,
there is a constant gentle deposition of diatom skeletons, which are
also basically CaC04. Along with algae, diatoms are probably among the
most prolific life form on earth.
Depositions of this kind obviously didn't happen overnight (and probably
not in the last 4,000 years either). (I wonder how creationists believe
deposits of limestone and diatomaceous earth came to exist?)
Daniel B. Wheeler
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
More information about the Ag-forst