Foster Writes
>
> Chris Perley writes:
> >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.
>
> I disagree that woody biomass useage is a 'free lunch'. The
> comment of yours
> that I referred to regarded a high forest in New Zealand  which
> was composed
> of native trees with approximately 200 cubic meters of wood per
> hectare. You
> said that you could replace this forest with E. grandis - if I remember
> correctly - and produce more wood on this site as a means to increase the
> amount of carbon sequestrated on the same amount of forest lands.


Do you ever read e-mails John - or do you just look at the author and make
your assumptions form there?  I was using the example of high volume
plantations being able to produce a greater total sink of C as a corrolary
of your "high biomass is best" inference.  In other words, your narrow
analysis of forests leads to situations where you would endorse forest
conversion to simplified plantations based on your own arguments.  A
corrolary of your position.

Now you state that I was advocating such conversion, when I was implying the
absolute opposite to highlight your basic error.  In fact, damn it, I will
find what I DID say specifically about conversion in the early part of the
string.


This is the exchange from which you seem to directly take your
interpretation of my advocacy (3/12 12.15 pm NZ time).
============
JF The
> younger forest plantation is harvested between 40 to 100 years after
> clearcutting and therefore there is a net loss of Carbon sequestration in
> these type of forests when compared to older, longer living forests.

Not necessarily.  You assume that the "young" forest is replacing the "old"
one.  It need not be so.  It also depends on what type of "older" forest.
You are implicitly valuing the "taller" forest types over the "shorter"
forest types.  Some "old" forests are not very "productive".  Your argument
could work against natural forests.  Replacing a Nothofagus or Leptospermum
forest in New Zealand with a Douglas-fir forest would probably involve a net
increase in carbon storage - even at a relatively young age of 50 years.   D
fir is just that much bigger.  I have stated that where this occurs it is
undesirable - for other reasons aside from carbon issues.  Carbon issues are
a two edged sword if you use it as THE rationale for forest management
choice John.  Once again complications exist which that pop article you
posted does absolutely nothing to reveal - quite the reverse, it simplifies
it and does far more harm than good for the sake of a few warm feelings for
those who already prejudge the issue.  CP
============

Please note the sentence "I have stated that where this occurs it is
undesirable - for other reasons aside from carbon issues."  Can I get any
more specific?  Yes I can as a matter of fact, because the previous
statement I posted read thus


========
"A complex, slowly revolving forest system should not be sacrificed to make
way for a vastly more simple and faster-revolving forestry system."  (posted
2/12 2000 13.32 NZ time)
=======


Could I have been MORE specific?  Perhaps I could, because to this I  added
the VERY specific comment made in the same post as the one above discussing
Douglas-fir replacing Nothofagus and Leptospermum, which read thus:

==========
"Once again - for fear of misunderstanding - I am NOT saying the plantations
are "better" than old forests and that we ought to replace old forests with
young ones!!!  (just in case someone decides to treat me as a spawn of the
devil or something)." (posted 2/12 2000 13.32 NZ time)
==========

Upper case for emphasis - DO YOU NOW ACCEPT THAT MY POSITION IS NOT
PLANTATION CONVERSION OF NATURAL FOREST?  I guess some people just LIKE
treating others as spawns of the devil.  Makes them feel good perhaps.

I wouldn't have bothered replying to any of these posts if you hadn't
produced the little smear.  I have had enough of these tactics at home
concerning sustainable forestry issues.

I don't expect an apology.  Just leave it there.  Please be more careful
before attributing views to people.

As to your comments in the remainder of the post, I get very confused.  You
don't want renewable energy through biomass apparently, based - at least in
part - on the view that it would be impossible to supply all the world's E
needs this way.  To which I shake my head and wonder - isn't a bit less
NON-renewable energy use a good thing?  And if renewable sources are a
substitute, doesn't it follow that that MIGHT be a good thing.

As to the "free lunch of photosynthesis" being sophist - well, we'll just
have to disagree, as we will on your obviously entrenched premise that all
forest use is "exploitation".

Chris Perley





There is
> no "free lunch" in nature I submit. Just because the energy from
> the sun is
> constant does not mean that 'we' can continue to exploit forests
> as we have
> been.
>
>
> That is the 'sophist' argument of the day...on this list.


> Vaclav Smil writing in "Biomass Energies" has clearly and unequivocally
> estimated that it is utterly impossible to supply the world's
> energy demand
> with biomass sourced energy. The estimate he provided is based on the
> highest conversion ratios of solar energy to woody biomass there
> is which is
> less than 1 %. There simply is not enough forestland to supply the world's
> energy needs. The US DOE also has estimated recently that the