JF wrote
> >Steve: Lets see, is this going to help with the problem of CO2? You
aren't
> >suggesting we burn trees are you? I thought you just got done yelling at
> >Chris Perley for this.
>
> JF: Yep. Darn right I did. He was advocating the cutting down of
> primary forests
> and replacing them with Eucalyptus grandis or something...We cannot afford
> to cut down forests that are primary forests and replace them with
> plantations any longer. There are lots of plantations of Eucalyptus which
> are not even native in India that are causing water shortages, and in Peru
> the Eucalyptus are robbing pasture lands near villages which could be used
> for raising animals. They are cutting those plantations down and replacing
> them with open canopy indigenous forests that do not deplete groundwater
> supplies....
Dear Mr Foster. I did no such thing. This is not the first time you have
put words in peoples' mouths. In the string discussing plantations and
carbon sequestration I specifically said that the replacement of any complex
forest with a simplified plantation is wrong. In fact, I recall being
specific because I thought that there might be someone who was motivated in
some way to twist my words to suit their own favoured interpretation,
especially those who favour the bible-clasping, moralistic, finger-pointing,
and inquisitorial style. I have never advocated "the cutting down of
primary forests and replacing them with Eucalyptus grandis or something".
Your attempts to demonise individuals do nothing for constructive dialogue.
For the record, this is what I wrote with regard to renewable energy:
=====
Yep. A nice positive statement from you john. One day the price for oil
etc. might be high enough (or perhaps the environmental costs internalised)
that people start using photosynthesised wood again. Unless you prefer
aluminium of course.
CP
=====
No mention of annihilating forests. My argument is that we need to use more
renewable energy resources - and the sun is the source of one free lunch
through photosynthesis, and the fixing of C in the process. As to your
previous comments about my advocacy of "killing trees", I was going to let
it ride, but your distortions again go beyond reason. The death of a tree
does not mean the death of a forest. A forest ecology is not analogous to
either Bambi or the Wind in the Willows, and if you want to anthropomorphise
every creature and tree, then I'm afraid dialogue is impossible. You eat
and use dead things John. Get used to it.
And aluminium uses 16 times the energy to get an equivalent product than
timber processing (according to Dr Wink Sutton, Ex NZ Forest Research
Institute). That's a lot of oil, all producing atmospheric C, which I
thought was one of your concerns.
Chris Perley
|