Dears, Good points. I have envisioned, for the past 25 or so years, how might be the best way to draw carbon out of the atmosphere. Presently I'm growing corn as a soil improvment crop to add carbon in organized (not necessarily stable but lasting forms to the soil, i.e. the carbon stays in the soil even though it changes its forms.) forms and add it back to our soils. Corn is a C4 plant, meaning it is amongst the best photopynthesisers. I can't grow sugar cane here because of the winters or I wqould be experimenting with sugar cane.
Trees change the ecology and bring the biology of the soil up into the trunk and canopy of the forest. So they actually deplete the soil of life and send it up into the stand. Maybe this DOES actually give off carbon dioxide initinally But no matter, corn grabs up so much more carbon dioxide in a single year it isn't funny, so why try to grow trees other than stable aesthetics? Grow corn. Or grow hemp, which is comparable in sequestering carbon dioxide, and preferable if you want fiber. Such good fiber. The reason, so far as I can tell, that trees are in favor is that inputs are so low you could wait forever. Well, the same is true of field broadcasting. If field broadcasting is used other inputs would be comparably low. People should investigate and not just accept the current global ideas. Best, Hugh >Dear Friends, > >Here is the first of two articles that were just forwarded to the >Ecological Economics forum. > >Tree farms won't halt climate change > >09:32 28 October 02 >Fred Pearce, Valencia > >The Kyoto Protocol to halt climate change is based on a scientific fallacy, >according to the first results of CarboEurope, a Europe-wide programme that >has pioneered research into the carbon budget. > >The protocol says that countries can help meet their targets for cutting >emissions of greenhouse gases over the next decade by planting forests to >soak up carbon dioxide. But the soil in these "Kyoto forests" will actually >release more carbon than the growing trees absorb in the first 10 years, the >new research shows. > >"Countries will be able to claim carbon credits for the forests. But that >won't reflect what is happening in the atmosphere," says Riccardo Valentini >of the University of Tuscia in Viterbo, Italy. He presented the CarboEurope >data last week in Valencia, Spain. > >The project's revelations could embarrass governments now meeting in New >Delhi to discuss implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Earlier in October, >Italy announced plans to achieve between 10 and 40 per cent of its emission >reductions target for 2012 through forest planting. But now its own >scientists are warning that these sinks might not work. > > >CO2 surge > > >The problem is soils. Forest soils and the organic matter buried in them >typically contain three to four times as much carbon as the vegetation >above. CarboEurope's researchers have discovered that when ground is cleared >for forest planting, rotting organic matter in the soil releases a surge of >CO2 into the air. > >This release will exceed the CO2 absorbed by growing trees for at least the >first 10 years, they say. Only later will the uptake of carbon by the trees >begin to offset the losses from soils. In fact, says CarboEurope chairman >Han Dolman of the Free University Amsterdam, some new forests planted on >wet, peaty soils will never absorb as much carbon as they spit out. > >The world's densest network of CO2 monitoring devices has revealed that >Europe's forests are absorbing up to 400 million tonnes a year, or 30 per >cent of the continent's emissions. > >Researchers once assumed that most of this came from young forests, since >old forests were thought to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere - sucking >up as much gas as they spew out. But, says Valentini, old forests actually >accumulate more carbon than young plantations. This suggests that >conservation of old forests is a better policy for tackling global warming >than planting new ones. > > >Perverse incentive > > >But the Kyoto Protocol takes none of this into account. "Besides ignoring >soils, it has no measures to stop deforestation," says Valentini. Instead, >it seems to give countries a perverse incentive to chop down existing >natural forests and replace them with plantations. > >"They will be able to claim carbon credits for the new planting, while in >reality releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the air," says Valentini. "There >is nothing in the protocol to stop this." > >"If the politicians had known in 1997 what we know now, they would never >have agreed to its rules on carbon sinks - at least, I hope they wouldn't," >says Dolman. > > >09:32 28 October 02 > > >Return to news story > > > © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. > >-- > >With kindest regards, > >Barry Carter ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >2319 Balm >Baker City, Oregon 97814 >Phone: 541-523-3357 >Web Pages: >Forest - http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/bmnfa/index.htm >ORMUS - http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/whatisit.htm > >We must either let the Law of Love rule us through and through or not at >all. Love among ourselves based on hatred of others breaks down under the >slightest pressure. The fact is such love is never real love. It is an >armed peace. And so it will be in this great movement in the West against >war. War will only be stopped when the conscience of mankind has become >sufficiently elevated to recognize the undisputed supremacy of the Law of >Love in all the walks of life. Some say this will never come to pass. I >shall retain the faith till the end of my earthly existence that this shall >come to pass . . . > --Mahatma Gandhi-- Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
