Opinion

Gov't Buries Fact that Logging Blows Our Emissions Target

Forest emissions push CO2 77 per cent higher than BC's official numbers say. We need a plan.

By Jens Wieting, 23 Sep 2009, TheTyee.ca

mt_pine_beetle.jpg

Pine beetle helped turn our forests into carbon dioxide producers.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

World leaders wrapped up their summit in New York, prompting optimistic talk in some high places that the crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen in December might succeed. That's far from certain, of course, but one positive trend is that many countries with large tracts of forests are ramping up proposals about how to reduce emissions from forest loss and degradation. There is even a name for this: REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). The government of Brazil, for example, has pledged to reduce deforestation of the Amazon rainforest by more than 70 per cent by 2018.

Yet B.C. has set no target to reduce massive emissions from our forest land base. Just before B.C. Day, while forest fires across the province were spewing out huge amounts of carbon dioxide, the government released British Columbia's Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. The report gives a break-down of CO2 emissions by sector -- with a major source tucked away in the "memo" section and not counted at all.

According to the report, total greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia in 2007 were 67 megatonnes. These mainly originate from the use of fossil fuels (80 per cent) as well as waste (six per cent), agriculture (four per cent) and deforestation (five per cent). So far, all correct. But it's the innocuous-sounding item "emissions from forest land remaining forest land" that hides the real bomb: a whopping 51 megatonnes of CO2. This figure appears only as a "memo item" in the report and is not counted as part of B.C.'s total emissions. B.C.'s carbon emissions would be 77 per cent higher if emissions from forests were included.

Mountain Pine Beetle changed the equation

B.C.'s goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 33 per cent in 2020 compared to 2007 ignores emissions from forest land. New data shows an alarming trend; both B.C.'s and Canada's forests are becoming a source of carbon dioxide rather than a sink because they are releasing more carbon than they sequester annually. The federal government conveniently decided not to include emissions released from forests in the national greenhouse gas inventory. The provincial government followed the same approach. Obviously, this doesn't make emissions from forests go away.

The 2007 data on the emissions and sequestration of our forests in the new provincial report breaks down as follows:

  • 73 megatonnes of CO2 from harvesting
  • 8 megatonnes of CO2 from slash burning
  • 5 megatonnes of CO2 from wildfires
  • 34 megatonnes sequestered by BC's forests

The 34 megatonnes of CO2 sequestered by our forests buffer, to a certain extent, the overall forest-related emissions (from logging, wildfires and slash burning). However, the emissions from decay of dead organic matter have increased dramatically since 2002 due to the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak. They are the main reason why B.C.'s forests are no longer a sink for carbon but have become a source.

The proper management of forest affected by the Mountain Pine Beetle is of high priority if we are to mitigate further loss of carbon storage in the affected areas. At the same time, ongoing emissions from these forests will be somewhat beyond our control for a period of time. Large-scale salvage clearcutting -- for example for bio-energy -- is not a sustainable solution because it will negatively impact natural regeneration and environmental services in many areas. Not all the trees in the affected areas are dead. Healthy trees are growing in the understorey, and even dead trees reduce erosion and flooding and continue to store carbon for a period of time while young trees grow back. Since climate change will bring about more extreme weather events, we have to maintain ecological functions of our forests like flood control and avoid disrupting these further through more clear cuts.

Logging and slash burning are by far the most significant forest activities that can be managed to reduce emissions in the short term. Hence, three priority areas to reduce emissions from forests should be:

Increase the area of old forest off-limits to logging. Emissions from harvesting are much higher when logging occurs in old growth forests compared to younger forests. This is particularly true for coastal forests with little natural disturbance and massive carbon storage accumulated over thousands of years. Shifting harvesting from old to second growth will immediately reduce GHG emissions from logging. It will also help species that depend on old growth forest, particularly where old forest is in deficit.

Improve logging practices. Heavy logging with massive loss of canopy cover warms the soil surface and increases the rate of decomposition and release of carbon. Improved management practices like selective logging, longer rotation and increased retention contribute to maintaining and enhancing carbon storage. Improved forest management can also contribute to better habitat protection for species that require natural, undisturbed stands of trees.

Reduce wood waste and slash burning. A 2009 study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that millions of cubic metres of usable logs are left behind at logging sites. If fully released to the atmosphere, these logs would increase B.C.'s average annual greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent (more than 3 million tonnes). Regulation and incentives, combined with better reporting and oversight through government audits, would not only reduce waste and emissions but also create new jobs.

Wood products can be a climate friendly alternative to materials like concrete and steel. They store up to 20 per cent of the carbon removed from the forest after harvesting, some of them long-term. Forestry in the era of climate change has the potential to be a key part of a low-carbon economy providing new jobs, but we have to take a close look where it is done, how it is done, and how much gets logged and left behind.

B.C. must set targets and create a plan to reduce emissions from logging in the same way it did with emissions from fossil fuels. In order to avoid catastrophic climate change, it is mandatory that B.C.'s forests become carbon neutral as soon as possible. The province should reduce annual CO2 emissions from forest land (86 megatonnes in 2007) by at least 60 per cent (equivalent to the net emissions of 2007) by 2020. The remaining emissions would then be in the same range as current sequestration (34 megatonnes). The plan should also include action to increase sequestration of our forests, but it is addressing logging that promises immediate results. As with most things in life, there is no cast iron guarantee. But this would be a respectable start. [Tyee]

Jens Wieting is coastal forest campaigner with Sierra Club B.C.

43 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    Another usless article from and elite founded NGO

    This article is based on the faulty premise that CO2 is a pollution and climate driver when "more than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

    But our globalists controlled media continues to promote this UN propaganda like it was scientific fact.

    Jens Wieting, do your soul a favor and stop trying to deceive the public by spouting this manmade global warming propaganda for one of the global elite founded private NGOs (Sierra Club B.C.
    ) and get yourself a real honest job like most Canadians.

    People are nolonger sucking their thumbs and believing eveything they hear and read in the controlled media.

    And by the way, make sure you get your flu shots: a little mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and squalene in your brain may cause you to start writing about things that are based on facts.

  • alive

    2 years ago

    cost effective

    rockbysea, I will try to remember your words when they start to slashburn several acres right next to my home.
    Some developer cleared a large tract of land , with the hope of creating another subdivision.
    Obviously he considered it not cost-effective to shred the brush and trees to usefull mulch, so now we have dozens of warehouse sized piles ready to burn as soon as he sees fit.
    Wood fire smoke does havoc with my lungs, but like who cares, right?

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    "Wood fire smoke does havoc with my lungs, ...right?"

    Alive, yes it does and I do care having sensitive lungs myself. But CO2, the stuff plants breath, one of the essential elements of life along with water, air and sunlight, is NOT pollution and never was.

    This lie is being exposed exponentially along with many other lies. I'm sick of all these lies. Every time I turn on the radio or TV I hear nothing but lies. We are soaked in lies. I'm sick of it. Everyday I gotta wash the slime off and many of the writers on this website love to spray their slime all over the public. But I take comfort in many of the informed comments which is why I visit.

  • Moat

    2 years ago

    rockbysea... here for a rant?

    Whoa,

    What a rant. Gee, thanks but no thanks. It is perplexing how you can seriously put your information forward.

    The World Net Daily? The site that is preoccupied with checking Barack Obama's birth certificate?

    The "slime" that you mention? You bring the slime upon yourself.

    World Net Daily?

    Maybe your post was a troll by a left winger trying to curry false favor with realistic man. Anyways, I bit.

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    I brought upon myself Moat

    Here's a direct link to the petition project which is growing by the day:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php

    Not a site for the gatekeepers of slime but for those who are continuously trying to washing it off.

    With regards to Obama: Thanks for bringing to my mind this link for those who want to wash off the Obama slime as well:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

    Any other purveyors of slime you care to bring to my attention?

  • rangergord

    2 years ago

    logging and climate change

    While there are definite problems with the validity of the CO2 causing climate change dogma as a forester I think the forest management recommendations made here make good sense for many other reasons. The big problem now is with enormous government deficits and a dead forest industry with poor market conditions for as far as the eye can see. Where is the money going to come from to pay for proper forest management?

  • ReeferMadness

    2 years ago

    Really

    Rockbysea, there are always going to be skeptics. That's healthy. According to Wikipedia, however, on the subect of the IPCC report, "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Also, I drilled through the link you provided and found people who want to, among other things, bring back DDT. Is the jury still out on that too?

    Ultimately, though, it doesn't really matter. Whether the science on anthropogenic climate change ultimately proves out is really secondary. As the human species grows more populous and our technology gives us more power, our impact on the planet will continue to increase over time. We need to start employing the precautionary principle and limiting the effects of our activities until we properly understand their effects. Otherwise, we will eventually find ourselves with a problem we can't fix. If it isn't global warming it will be something else.

  • Karen D.

    2 years ago

    Simple solution

    It has been determined that the mountain pine beetle epidemic is becoming less of a threat due to the lack of healthy trees for the beetle to infest. As much of the CO2 emmissions are caused by the decay of the destroyed trees this would seem to be a non-issue as nature is correcting the situation.

    I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the government to clean up the excessive waste left from logging. Until the Liberal government relaxed the rules, it was up to the holder of the TFL (tree farm licence) to make use of as much wood as possible and replant, if necessary, to accelerate reforestation. If our esteemed government would re-institute these practices we would be well on our way to help reduce excessive CO2 emmissions through logging.

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    ReeferMadness, UN's IPCC is as phoney as a $3 bill

    ReeferMadness, the only folks who still believe in your UN phony IPCC propaganda reports are the same brain dead folks who were glued to CNN for weeks during the Michael Jackson coverage.

    And wiki is about as politically controlled as many of the writers for tyee.

  • chrisdiver

    2 years ago

    rock by sea ...OTL

    World Net Daily please. They recently posted an article scientifically "proving" the impossibility of evolution. Cue the banjo music.

  • Rubber stamp

    2 years ago

    @Rangergord

    The BC Liberals record on silvaculture is abyismal,as for logging and forestry to come back strong in BC your dreaming.

    Until we have a change in government forestry in BC is a dead industry.

    Here are a few facts you might be interested in, raw log exports are up 1600% since Campbell has been the government.
    The softwood lumber hassle with the USA that was sort of resolved 18 months ago......
    The USA was holding billions of dollars in tariffs that was returned to forest companies in Canada......The BC share of that money was about 1 billion dollars, the big three forest companies in BC spent a huge chunk of that money on upgrading mills,sounds good right? Wrong, the big three spent 700 million upgrading their mills in the USA, virtually no money was spent on BC mills, that`s right, the big three upgraded American based mills,and those mills are primed and ready to receive BC raw logs.....

    It was a complete hose job for BC workers.

    Lastly in watching estimate debates on the ministry of forests the government is putting the big effort to promote BC wood to China, not lumber,raw logs,exports of raw logs to Chine is up 300% over the last few years, and these logs aren`t being boomed by barge to China, the logs are being put in shipping containers that are going back to China,enough raw logs are going to China to keep the equivelant of 5 mills going full time, it is expected that the increase in raw logs to China will be equivelant of 8 to 10 mills within two years.....

    Like everything Campbell does is a disaster,Campbell doesn`t understand :Value Added:

    We are nothing but a raw log whore, great for American owned forestry companies and Chinese mills but real bad news for BC workers.

    Cheers-Eyes Wide Open

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    Is there an eco in this room

    chrisdiver says, “They recently posted an article scientifically "proving" the impossibility of evolution.”

    What does one article that opposes the view of evolution (even though some 90% of the worlds population believe in a Divine Creator) have to do with an article that post a link to a website where over 31,000 scientists (many who are atheists) have signed a petition rejecting the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging earth's climate?

    Just because you don’t agree with the views from one article does not mean you cannot agree with the views of another article. Do you agree with every article posted on Tyee?

    Oh I see where you’re coming from: In order to be a credible website you cannot have any articles from writers that oppose the religion/theory of evolution. But if your website has articles that promote the religion/theory of evolution as a fact then that website is a credible source of information.

    So according to you over 90% of the world’s population “cue the banjo music.” What an arrogant and elitist point of view. That’s coincidentally the same point of view as the eugenicists, the elitists who founded the UN and its related NGOs and who spend billions promoting the propaganda of manmade GW through their controlled global media network.

    I've got shocking news for you: the elite have a banjo with your name on it.

  • oldcynic

    2 years ago

    pine beetle

    The dead trees do not hold snow pack or limit flooding any better than does a clearcut area, therefore the effort should be to cut the trees asap and replant so that the new trees can grow to a size required to produce a carbon sink again.
    The slash piles of today are the main cause of CO2 emissions every winter when burnt. This waste could be much better used in waste to energy conversion, however the government has done dick in this area.
    Unfortunately, the forest companies are not in a position to cut more than their equipment allows. Why doesn't the government help in this area by retraining out of work foresters to operate the logging machinery, lease it and get the pine cut before its too late. It can be preserved or sold as raw logs which at least give us the revenue to continue.
    rockbysea - you are seriously flawed in your thinking!

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    Rubber stamp wrote: "Campbell doesn`t understand"

    A yes but Campbell does understand and knows exactly what he’s doing, he’s doing exactly what he is told to do: to do his part to incrementally dismantle Canada piece by piece and hand it over to foreign powers. He’s instructed to do it incrementally according to the rules of the Fabian Society, not all at once but a little at a time, enough to tick people off but not enough to cause a massive revolt leading to all out revolution. Then eventually we all wake up one morning to discover that the country is gone, completely handed over to foreign powers.

    Not just the forestry but the rivers and lakes through the hydro projects, the entire transportation infrastructure through the Gateway Program and the ferries, all the mineral rights...

    Surely by now people must realize that Mr. Campbell is an imposter, a traitor working for foreign powers.

    Just like there’s more than one way to skin a cat there’s more than one way to conquer a nation: you can use bombs and bullets through military invasion or you can use the Fabian approach to gradually take over a nation from the inside by transforming the entire political apparatus into a dog and pony show that appeases the sleeping public while real legislation is passed to covertly transfer all power and resources to foreign enemies.

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    oldcynic wrote - you are seriously flawed in your thinking!

    And so are thousands of scientists....I'm in good company

  • Moat

    2 years ago

    rockbysea

    Ok, I am still biting. And I still think you are trolling.

    I went and checked out some of your "scientists" from the petition project, and had trouble finding ANY research from these so-called PhDs. At least "Reefermadness" found a couple, but sheesh, I could not find anything definitive.

    And you think you are in "good company"?

    Again, come on... tell me you are just trolling for a reaction.

  • chrisdiver

    2 years ago

    rock by sea FOS

    You dismiss the work of the thousands of IPCC scientists as "propaganda" then accuse others of being "brain dead" and "arrogant". What a knee slapper! The banjo music grows louder with each of your posts.

  • freebear

    2 years ago

    Under a rock by the sea!

    Belongs there as if he never evolved!

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    To all UN minions and traitors to Canada

    Look at these treasonous minions serving their overfed, stuffed, aging wealthy perverts, lying to all Canadians like we're a bunch of idiots.

    First of all Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas:

    Co2 is only 3.62% of all greenhouse gases. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas at 95% of all greenhouse gases.

    Mankind only produces 3.23% of all Co2 gas. Therefore the total amount of greenhouse gas that mankind contributes to the atmosphere in the form of Co2 is:

    3.62% (total amount of Co2) X 3.23% (mankind total production of Co2) = .117 percent

    In other words, if mankind were to drop off the planet total greenhouse gases would be reduced by .117 percent. Or 99.88 percent of all greenhouse gases would still remain in the atmosphere if mankind dropped off the planet.

    It’s all a bloody hoax and you don’t need to be a scientist to do the math.

    Many Canadians know the IPCC is political, private and unelected like other UN bodies where final conclusions are politically driven and have nothing to do with real science. If you look at the bibliographies of the people in the IPCC there are a lot of non-scientists. To build the number up to 2,500 they take reviewers, government officials and anyone close to them and none of them are asked to agree and many disagree. The specialists who do not agree with the polemic they simply get put on the author list anyway and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s "top scientists". Scientist who want to get their names removed from these reports have to threaten IPCC with legal action so many don't go through all the trouble.

    Many honest scientists have a hard time getting research proposals funded who speak out against this manmade global warming hoax.

    This hoax and many other scams involving our governments in collusion with these private unelected bodies are being revealed on mass and the soulless minions who promote their scams for a few pence are being exposed.

  • ReeferMadness

    2 years ago

    Rockbysea

    When you speak of conspiracies, I get a mental image of someone hunkered down in a fallout shelter wearing a tin-foil hat. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. If you don't have it, you're just making yourself look sillier.

    I agree that some scientists have raised legitimate questions about anthropogenic climate change. However, I'm a great proponent of the precautionary principle. Rather than take the position that it's OK to do what we like to the planet until someone can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it's harmful, let's take the position that we lighten our impact as much as possible until someone can demonstrate that it isn't.

    We have a long history of reckless and stupid behavior in the names of science and progress. For the sake of my children and their children, I would like to think we change our ways before we break something that we can't fix.

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    ReeferMadness

    "conspiracies" "tin-foil hat"… these over used terms are constantly used by the establishment whores and deliberately thrown in the face of everyone who challenges mainstream propaganda.

    No, there is no such thing as conspiracies. Everything we need to know we can find out from our TVs , radios, and newspapers. That’s where we find all the “experts” who do all the thinking for us. Experts like that grotesque slab of lard Bill Goode, from cknw, who tells us that the tolls collected from these privately foreign financed and built bridge projects are going to “health care.” It’s amazing how shows like his are used to seed the public with the elitists’ agenda.

    You people continue to despise Canada and Canadians as you keep throwing this garbage in our faces.

    "The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective Canadian psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda."

    Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    Is there a tooth fairy?

    Rockbysea offers pretty convincing statistical evidence denying the effect of Anthropogenic CO2 upon climatatic warming, and notes:

    "Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence."

    To which the Warmists offer, after consideble doubt having been advanced re "warming", the new buzzwords - suitably vague - of Climate Change". Can't miss there, EH?

    If that hasn't convinced you, there's always the argument - now standard fare in every enviro's lexicon - of the Precautionary Principle. Simply stated, it says: "I know I can't prove a thing I'm telling you, but what if I'm right, eh?" And then follows a list of perils ranging from near immediate extinction to pimples on the penis.

    It's another form of religion - like either you believe in God and be rewarded with 97 virgins when you die or you go straight to Hell. Not a very provable agument, I think.....but only for non-believers, of course.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    the Stone Age ended ...

    ... even though we didn't run out of rocks. Apparently they're now filling the empty spaces inside cranial cavities of hominids inhabiting intertidal zones.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Net_Daily

    But petitioning rocks can't make them blush :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I

    Proving denial :
    http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

    Extraordinary evidence :
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

    Which begs the question ; why would you need to continue paying for hydro-carbon based energy when the renewable alternatives are so much better ?

  • ReeferMadness

    2 years ago

    Is ME2 trolling?

    ME2, when I read your response, my first reaction was you must be a troll, deliberately misreading and twisting what I was saying. Then I remembered the old saying "Never attribute to malice that which can reasonably be ascribed to stupidity". So, I've decided to give you the benefit of doubt. :)

    When I said "Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence", I was talking about rockbysea's conspiracy theories.

    And WRT the precautionary principle, the essence is that if you want to introduce significant change, it should be up to you to demonstrate it's safe to do so, not up to the government, environmentalists or someone else to prove it isn't. Seems to make sense to me.

    And yes, releasing billions of tons of previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere qualifies as a significant change.

  • ReeferMadness

    2 years ago

    Rockbysea

    Nice response (wiping the spittle off my monitor).

    Look, there's no need for name calling. I love a good conspiracy theory. JFK. Pearl Harbor. Roswell. 9/11. UFO coverups. I've read tons of stuff on these and a whole bunch more that don't come to mind at the moment. But although I enjoy them as stories, I don't automatically accept them as fact. I read the evidence and the counter-evidence.

    There are a lot of cases where I have serious doubts about the official stories. The "magic bullet". Why WTC7 collapsed. How the Japanese managed to catch the Americans by complete surprise at Pearl Harbour. But that doesn't mean that any of the conspiracy theories are right. It doesn't even necessarily mean that the official story is wrong.

    Now, it seems that you believe there are some very widespread conspiracies involving the UN, governments, media and numerous other organizations. Personally, I always get uncomfortable when I hear of a conspiracy involving more than dozens or, at most the low hundreds of people. It just gets too difficult to keep it secret. But what you're talking about must involve, at the very least thousands of people and probably into the tens or hundreds of thousands. Then there are spouses and other intimate acquaintances who must know at least something of what is going on. How do you keep a lid on all of that? And what, exactly are the motivations of all of these people to push the belief of climate change?

    The bottom line is, if you want people to take a conspiracy theory seriously, you need to dig up some serious evidence. Insults aren't going to cut it.

  • Rubber stamp

    2 years ago

    Fact versus fiction

    There are a few things I know for sure.

    #1) Mankind will be long gone and the earth will still be here.

    #2)Volcano`s, the big ones,krakatoa,vesuvious and even some volcano`s that are currenting belching a little gas are capable of belching out so much GHGs in hours or days that are equivelant of decades of man`s polluting.

    #3)If we can do stuff cleaner with less pollution why not?

    #4)Carbon taxes, emission trading,carbon offsets,are a waste of time and are designed to empty the public`s pockets of money while accomplishing nothing.

    #5)Corporations will never reduce pollution unless ordered to at the point of a gun or financial ruin.

    #6)Marc Jaccard,Al Gore and other enviro`s have done more harm than good,because as I stated in #5 that the corporation only understands directs threats,while we fiddle around with guilt taxes emissions rise and rise.

    #7)You better hope that ROCKBYSEA is right about global warming because absolutely nothing is being done except the fleecing of money from your pockets.

    Cheers-Eyes Wide Open

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    ReeferMadness says "How do you keep a lid on all of that?"

    cold hard cash

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    saving your cold, hard cash ...

    ... and reduce your GHGs :

    http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=10046
    http://www.craik.ca/ecocentre.html

    We'll use up the dino-carbon before the wind stops blowing or the sun stops spewing photons and heat.

    Peak oil is here, but solutions are abundant. Don't miss out.

    Opportunity is more powerful even than conquerors and prophets.
    Benjamin Disraeli

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    No end in sight.

    Peak oil may be here, ORTory, but so is oil from coal.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Carboniferous Dino-rocks to Dino-juice

    Has been here since 1850s:
    http://www.almondvalley.co.uk/P_shale_oil.htm

    Some prefer the Fischer-Tropsch method beloved of Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. As long as you believe the Carbon Fairy will magically sequester all the GHGs produced. For at least a few hundred years.

    http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal_Chapters_4-5.pdf

    Or we could start with thrifty Nega-watts while transitioning to sunbeams.

    http://www.rmi.org/

  • wilbert robichaud

    2 years ago

    Now CO2 is only 10 to 25% responsible?

    Crap!! what is Club Sierra going to say ?
    UN IPCC scientist Richard Courtney responds to global warming activists lament on the “fixation on carbon dioxide.”.. sep 23 2009 . So now instead of being the Major cause for warming CO2 is now only 10 to 25 % of it? Back peddling by the IPCC big time now that the public ( not all) is getting wise in regard to the AGW hoax."Take black carbon, which gives soot its colour. It is now accepted to be the second biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for between 10 and 25 per cent of it. Formed through incomplete combustion of wood, vegetation and fossil fuels, it lands a unique double whammy." http://climatedepot.com/a/3008/Skeptical-UN-IPCC-Scientist-Mocks-CO2-control-is-failing-so-the-soot-fallback-position-is-being-adopted-by-those-who-like-to-pretend-people-effect-global-climate--we-dont

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Sooty thinking: Lies as black as coal

    Always the same old, same old wrong sources :

    Perhaps he has an evil coal-based twin:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Depot

    And still the man-made increase in GHGs continues as we burn fossil carbon:
    http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6777

  • wilbert robichaud

    2 years ago

    desmutblog

    Tsk! tsk!Always the same old, same old smear sources :Desmut Funded by James Hogan (James Hoggan & Associates) and John Lefebvre (Former President of Netseller Group)So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.
    There has been no mention on the blog, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.
    Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science.
    and now we have ...PoorSourcewatch..Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy."You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques."
    The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

    Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization.".
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/arctic-temperature-reporting-in-the-news-needs-a-reality-check/

    try again!

  • Muckeye

    2 years ago

    Suggestion!?

    Maybe rockbysea and william robichaud would like to turn the computers off in their little compounds and go outside and enjoy the great outdoors, preferably hunting with Dick Cheney? I'm sure if he said jump you would...

  • gregariousF

    2 years ago

    rockbysea, The petition you

    rockbysea,

    The petition you refer to is dubious, cannot be verified, and have few scientists with the proper background:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda

    They also keep some rather convenient company, given their views.

  • wilbert robichaud

    2 years ago

    hunting?

    I would rather hunt with D.C. then get caught Salmon poaching with David Suzuki.

  • Muckeye

    2 years ago

    Get on it then!

    Go out and give'r with old Dick then. Don't forget your hunting vest, though I heard it doesn't always register with the boy genius.

    And don't worry about being caught salmon poaching- you and your kind have done a great job at ensuring that that won't be a problem in the near future.

  • wilbert robichaud

    2 years ago

    gregariousF

    The petition you refer to is dubious, cannot be verified, and have few scientists with the proper background: .5%?? that's .5% more then Desmutblog.
    http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1834.htm

  • wilbert robichaud

    2 years ago

    Me and My kind?

    And what king could that be? and your kind is ?

  • Muckeye

    2 years ago

    Well lets see

    Head in the sand climate deniers... normal people and most of the worlds scientists.
    People who would hunt with Dick Cheney... People who would like to hunt Dick Cheney.
    Rightwingnutjobs...vast majority of the populace

    Capiche?

  • x4estworker

    2 years ago

    More Green Propaganda

    As just one tiny example of how innaccurate this story is, look at the nonsense about cutting old growth.

    Old-growth forests are not at all efficient in sequestering carbon. The fact is, once a forest reaches the old-growth stage, the carbon is already sequestered in the wood and the trees are growing at such a slow rate or not at all that carbon sequestration is negligible.

    Carbon sequestration occurs through the process of photosynthesis. Very simply put, photosynthesis is a chemical process that occurs within the needles (leaves) of a tree. Carbon dioxide is taken from the atmosphere, and combined with water and light. The resulting chemical reaction produces oxygen, water and complex carbohydrates. Carbon sequestration occurs during the formation of the complex carbohydrates.

    In a younger fast-growing forest, the process of photosynthesis in each tree takes place at a much higher rate than occurs in slow growing old-growth trees. That allows more carbon dioxide to be utilized in the photosynthesis process. Annual net growth per hectare is higher in a stocked young forest than in an old-growth forest. The overall result is more carbon sequestered in the young forest.

    Of course, we all know that the Sierra Club does not care at all about science. As good deep ecologists (Google that term), its all about saving the trees by whatever means it takes.

  • rockbysea

    2 years ago

    To all UN minions and traitors to Canada

    Please do honest Canadians a favor and follow the following CDC recommendations:

    "Two injections will be required three weeks apart for swine flu, also known as H1N1, and a third will be needed for seasonal flu, health officials said at a meeting today at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=axzjhgp27HJ8

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Staffing for Exposure

    deSmog only has one full-time and three part-timers ?

    Wow ! Who knew how little effort it takes to find out where the old cancer-stick lobbyists went. Bravura!

    If the science lectures rattle the brain-rocks, mix it up with some art :

    http://www.ageofstupid.net/

    And try not to worry too much about those lefties; as an old-fashioned Tory, I'm glad to know that burning less carbon now will conserve more for the future.
    Y'know, just in case the professional Oillies turn out to be the prescient visionaries seeing through the 'conspiracy of UN scientific lies and enviro-radical volunteers'.

    For the True, North, Honest Canadians who know how to profit :
    http://www.energyandcapital.com/

    Don't get stuck in the tar traps.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.