By: JamesR

JamesR — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:59:26 +0000

I have a much better sequestration suggestion than transporting to a mine in Arizona. Let’s take the trees (by barge perhaps?) up the Mississippi river about 700 miles to Missouri, where most of the commercial charcoal in the country is produced. We can char the trees in the commercial kilns, and sequester the char in agricultural fields or whatever we like. It would be stable on at least a centennial timescale, and have many virtuous benefits besides.
Babysnake, I think 90% of dead plant material is considered added to the carbon cycle in 10 years or less.
I think EPA could possibly be enlisted for a charismatic GHG release prevention project. What’s next?

By: babysnake

babysnake — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:03:50 +0000

Pablo
I think the whole idea of removing all of those trees is based on a whole lot of faulty assumptions and is unnecessarily complicated and wasteful.
First of all, it takes years or even decades for a tree to naturally decompose, depending on local conditions. The rate of decomposition is hardly something that needs to create a panic.
Secondly, a naturally decomposing tree does not get vaporized the way a burning tree does. While some of the cellulose in the tree might get broken down into CO2, some is broken down into very small, even microscopic particles, and remains solid, becoming the organic component of topsoil. Some of it is taken up by organisms such as termites, carpenter ants, paper wasps, earthworms, millipedes, fungi, and other detritivores. Again, it remains in a solid state and is not released into the atmosphere. In addition, new plants and trees growing on and around the trunks of the dead ones will take up the CO2 that is released. This is the way an intact ecosystem handles carbon released by dead trees. If you walk in a healthy forest, you will come across what are known as “nurse logs.” These are the trunks of trees that have died and fallen on the forest floor. New plants and trees will be growing in a line right out of the dead trunk. This is because the fallen tree leaves a break in the canopy that allows light to reach the forest floor. It is also because the decaying tree is providing nutrients (to a plant or tree, CO2 is a nutrient) for the new plants to grow. Removing the dead trees would be depriving new ones of needed nutrients.
The smartest thing to do with those trees in forest, swamp, bayou and any other natural areas would be to leave as many as possible right where they are and plant new, native trees and plants around the fallen trunks of the old ones. I would ask the Arbor Day Foundation to make sure that the new trees are native to the area where they are being planted and are planted where the old ones died. It might not be pretty, but it is the most ecologically sound way to handle the situation.
In populated areas where the trees have to be removed, such as trees that have fallen in roads, in yards, etc.,they should should be taken to local saw mills – or have portable saw mills brought in – and made into building materials, then donated to displaced people so they can rebuild their homes. Branches and saplings too small to be building materials could be made into plywood or strand board (formaldehyde-free, of course) for sheathing, or it could be mulched and composted then donated or sold to nearby farms for mulch and fertilizer.
As an incentive to get sawmill owners to do the volunteer work for storm victims, they could be given a certain proportion of downed trees to keep for themselves to sell. Maybe a company that makes portable saw mills could be persuaded to do it just for the positive publicity and goodwill it would generate for them.
With that many downed trees, you could probably rehouse all of the people who lost their homes and leave plenty to help regenerate natural areas. That way, the storm that was the destroyer would also be the source of renewal. This is how nature works. Why would anyone waste time, energy, and money to contravene it, deprive storm victims of resources close at hand that they can use to rebuild, and end up doing more harm than good?

Comments on: AskPablo: Katrina’s Trees

By: JamesR

By: babysnake