Re: RE: trees

["Duncan Fletcher" <dfletche@gte.net>]

To a point, you are right. The whole CO2 thing is about tieing up carbon. A
mature forest ties up a lot of carbon. It is, however, not much of a sink
for CO2 being produced unless some part of the mass is buried deep enough to
escape biological action. There is as much tree being converted to CO2 in
the dieing and dead trees as there is being removed in new growth. I did
here of a study that indicated otherwise absent fire, but fire is not
absent. But cutting down a tree is probably not much help, because that tree
is probably going to go into a product with a life cycle of less than a year
(paper) to a life cycle of maybe 200 years (a house) and then convert to
CO2. If you want to tie up carbon, cut the tree and bury it in a old salt
mine (but then you have to account for the CO2 produced in cutting and
transporting). Actually a rotting tree is more likely to go from tree to
methane (an even worse heat trap) before being converted to CO2.

Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net


----- Original Message -----
From: <BMcCrary27@aol.com>
>
> An interesting bit of information about trees, especially since we live in
> the coast redwood region......There is so much talk about global warming,
> which is caused by buildup of carbon dioxide, and it is acknowledged that
> trees take in CO2, while they discharge oxygen.  It is this exchange that
is
> so beneficial to animal life, including humans.  What many do not realize
is
> that the very old trees, though absolutely magnificent to see, are not
making
> an efficient exchange of CO2/Oxygen.  They are elderly, and it is the
young,
> vigorously growing trees that are making the REALLY efficient exchange.
> Therefore, it is vital that healthy, vigorous, YOUNG trees be a major part
of
> the forests in order to cleanse the air.  [snip]