Comments on: Clearing Forests Of Dead Wood Prevents Massive CO2 Emissions

By: dan cignoli

dan cignoli — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:32:24 +0000

Quick question – I have a wood burning stove with a double burn feature. When we were visited by a Sierra Club rep. he stated that decomposing trees release more toxins into the atmosphere than burning wood and that burning wood releases less that gas or oil. Today I read a letter to the editor in a local newspaper who feels his neighbor, who burns wood, is putting his health at risk. Any comments

By: Les Kantor

Les Kantor — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:55:09 +0000

Ning Zeng’s proposal is both insane and evil. Carbondioxid is not a pollutant, but a clean gas and the most important natural plant food. We should continue to convert coal, oil and natural gas into carbondioxid, releasing it into the atmosphere to promote plant growth. Contrary to “concensus” CO2 is in short supply, as we only had access to a fraction of the total amount of plant material buried under. Unfortunately we can not produce new carbondioxid.
Please consider the catastrophic; over 50,000 km²/annum increase of barren desert on our planet and the resulting decrease in rainfall, as we continue to deforest the planet. We need all the carbondioxid we can get to promote plant growth, particularly trees, by the trillions. Yes, we have arrived to such a critical point of deforestation, now we are facing water shortages.(Large trees could evaporate several hundred litres of water a day under optimum conditions.)
Please tell Mr Ning Zeng to keep his hands off carbondioxid destruction. He should find an honest way to earn a living.

By: Gary Gilmore

Gary Gilmore — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:53:51 +0000

Forget burying the wood in air tight containers to keep it from decomposing. There is an easier way. Carbon composed 50% of a piece of wood. The remaining 50% is composed of hydrogen and oxygen with trace amounts of potasium, nitrogen and other stuff. If you heat this wood, the hydrogen and oxygen are driven off which can be burned for energy production. By controling the atmospheric oxygen available to this process, the resulting by product is charcoal. Charcoal is basically inert and will not decompose over the centuries. Charcoal could be buried or better yet, applied to agricultual land as a soil admendment that increases the tilth of the soil. This has been used in the past by indians in the Amazon basin (pre columbian)

By: angelique van engelen

angelique van engelen — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:58:53 +0000

Just heard back from Mr Zeng,
He’s on holiday until end of July but I will report some more on his work then.
Regards,
Angelique

By: Wil Keenan

Wil Keenan — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:34:42 +0000

Hey all,
I was just reading this article in the latest Wired magazine. They seek to dispel popular methods and preconceptions of what being green actually is. I would love to know your thoughts. Their first topic discussed concerning clearing dead woods. “Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green” (link: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_intro)

By: angelique van engelen

angelique van engelen — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:30:09 +0000

Hey guys,
I guess these are all great ideas. Let’s hear from Mr Zeng himself!
Regards,
Angelique van Engelen

By: solicitor bulgaria

solicitor bulgaria — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:11:39 +0000

Even better than burying the wood is to turn it into charcoal and put it in the soil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

By: solicitor in bulgaria

solicitor in bulgaria — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:08:02 +0000

Even better than burying the wood is to turn it into charcoal and put it in the soil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

By: Dave Shires

Dave Shires — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:16:25 +0000

Concept! Can dead material be removed in a relatively non-disruptive manner and used for building material and/or biofuel? That’s a huge business idea if someone can figure out how to pull it off.

By: angelique van engelen

angelique van engelen — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:21:45 +0000

Gary, thanks for your comment.
Clearing out the forest of one sixth of the material can in my opinion not be a bad idea. Have you ever compared a kempt forest with and unkempt one? One sixth is nothing, believe me, even if it’s only leaves it would be a sane idea.
In terms of decomposing trees, I don’t think that Zeng proposed that. Airtight conditions prevent decomposing. What I particularly like about Zeng’s idea is that it’s a recurring CO2 sequestering. Nature could help us here whilst we think of different solutions. Massive logging is never a good idea, and it’s not what Zeng appears to propose.

By: Pablo

Pablo — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:09:43 +0000

Gary said: “trees falling down and dying is a carbon neutral process – they cannot release more CO2 than they absorbed during their lifetime.”
When the decay happens in the absence of oxygen, or anaerobically, rather than turning into CO2, methane is created. Methane is 23 times more harmful to the climate than CO2. So technically it is possible for a tree to have a net positive GHG impact.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:07:48 +0000

Just bear in mind, this was one of the silly ideas the bush admin used to justify massive logging. Plus, basically trees falling down and dying is a carbon neutral process – they cannot release more CO2 than they absorbed during their lifetime. It also takes a long time for trees to decompose – it’s not like they plop over and then release a bunch of CO2. Plus, old growth forests work very differently and it would be REALLY BAD to go around pulling all the dead logs out. Responsible forestry can go a long way, but clearing everything out is not necesarily responsible forestry.
Pablo talked about this a while ago check it out