Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

kuvasz wrote:

okie wrote:
kuvasz wrote:

my wife and i are moving to a wooded 4 acre farm with a house with 3200 square feet of roof, she works 30 miles away and i work out of my home office, so i think that once we convert to a hybrid vehicle that runs on gas and electricity she can drive almost for free on the two days she has to teach her classes at law school. with the forest producing wood for the wood burning stove, that heats most of the house and the hot water, along with the wind and solar we hope to be off the grid in a few years.

Good for you, but Al Gore would not be very proud. Burning wood is not all that carbon neutral, and living 30 miles from work is pretty wasteful. And isn't your wife at least going to take a bus instead of drive a car? And don't you know that living in a flat downtown is the ultimate thing to do, energy wise. Living on a farm, before long, you will be nothing but another hayseed.

gee, i'll let pass the fact that i have been living on a farm for the past nine years, but it takes one to know one now please go back to f%&*king your little sister. you know what creeps me out about you, other than your 7th grade education? that in a thread where i agree with many of your fellow travelers and engage in quite useful dialogue that makes able to know an important conduit for information? that you are so stupid that you fail to grasp it as a clear point for a basis of negotiation elsewhere.

i left you alone last week when it was clear that debating you about ethics was useless and further discussion would humiliate you, and here you are back again but you are too dullwitted to recognize the fact that i could have showed you further to be a mouthbreathing moron, but you persist in thinking that you have even average intelligence.

btw dummy my wife and i are investing in carbon offsets, dick-wad.

Apparently no sense of humor, unless your whole post is a joke, which might be possible, it sounds like one.

carbon offsets? You plant trees, then burn them for firewood? 1-1 = 0, is that the math? So if I plant a tree for every one that I burn, then Al Gore will be happy? Laughing

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
What are "carbon offsets" and how do they really help?

I keep seeing that term, but all I can find is that basicly you pay someone to plant trees to make up for the CO2 you create.

I fail to see how tht really does anything excpet make someone rich.

But, if you can get yourself off the grid, then I say good for you.

Uh, it plants more trees, which is a good thing for our environment. So it does do something.

Cycloptichorn

Uh, uh, uh, uh, cyclops, there are too many trees now in many places. There are more trees now, many many more than there were 100 years ago, in most places I have ever lived. I know places where trees are coming up volunteer, by the tens of thousands, that were not there, that was prairie with no trees a hundred years ago. So I don't plan on planting any more for the stupid carbon offset idea, which is totally bogus.

What a f*cking joke this post is, Okie. You don't know a goddamn thing at all about deforestation and the immense amount of forest and canopy lost due to logging, due you?

Normally I give you a pass on idiocy, but this is really too much. Just because you have some sort of idea that the little shithole corner of Oklahoma you live in has more trees then there used to be, doesn't change the fact that we have many less trees overall then a few centuries ago, or the fact that greater amounts of forest are a good thing for our environment.

Stick to the sliming and insinuations, please, you're much better at that then any sort of actual science- or logic-based discussion. Embarrassing for you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Prove there are less trees in the continental U.S. now than in 1776. Prove it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Prove there are less trees in the continental U.S. now than in 1776. Prove it.

Who said anything about the continental US? It's GLOBAL tree coverage that matters, ya maroon! Our environment doesn't just hover over our nation, self contained....

Just quit while you can, honestly.

But just to prove your bullshit wrong, here ya go.

Area of primary forests in the United States (lower 48)
(around 1620, top; and 1850 middle; 1920, bottom)

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/defores9.JPG

Quote:

Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away. Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html

More:

Quote:

Prior to the arrival of European-Americans about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 4 million square kilometers (1 billion acres) in 1600. For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated.[42] This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 3,080,000 km² (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 93,000 km² (23 million acres) of forest land is projected be lost by 2050[43], a 3% reduction from 1997. Other qualitative issues have been identified such as the continued loss of old-growth forest,[44] the increased fragmentation of forest lands, and the increased urbanization of forest land.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#United_States

Wikipedia reports a total drop by 1/4.

One F*CKING minute of googling, Okie. One minute.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Prove there are less trees in the continental U.S. now than in 1776. Prove it.

Who said anything about the continental US? It's GLOBAL tree coverage that matters, ya maroon! Our environment doesn't just hover over our nation, self contained....

Just quit while you can, honestly.

But just to prove your bullshit wrong, here ya go.

Area of primary forests in the United States (lower 48)
(around 1620, top; and 1850 middle; 1920, bottom)

Cycloptichorn

I said something about the U.S., because that is where I live. By the way, your maps prove nothing, except so called old growth forest. I know for a fact that vast areas of the great plains have alot more trees now than there were. I have seen a study somewhere that quantified trees, not forests, that said there are more here now than 1776. I can't find it now, but the reason I believe it is the fact that I have traveled throughout the West, the Great Plains, and some throughout the East, and there does not seem to be a shortage of trees anywhere. Your maps of old growth forests tell us nothing, and what is classified as forests tell us nothing. There are millions of trees outside of so-called forests.

So you've proved nothing, except to prove you have swallowed a line, taught by the tree huggers, that is not demonstrated by any solid evidence that I have seen. Talking U.S. now, but I do not feel compelled to plant trees to replace the ones cut down in Timbucktwo.

P.S. Calm down now, just because I have challenged a possible myth, it will all be okay, your world will survive.

0 Replies

You did not address the Wikipedia link that I provided, which showed that the forestation of ALL types has gone down by 1/4 here in the states.

Quote:

I know for a fact that vast areas of the great plains have alot more trees now than there were

No, you do not. Produce evidence of this fact - if you can.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Forests do not equal trees, cyclops.

You might want to read the following, which I am sure you will not believe, but I do, because it is logical. It has more reasoning and evidence of actual tree counts than your evidence about the location of something called forests, which tells us precious little concerning the whole picture, or total number of trees. Truth is nobody has ever counted all the trees in 1776, vs now, but common sense tells me that an objective study shows the number of trees have not decreased. Simple observation backs it up.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/01/liberals_cannot_see.html

http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2001/nc_2001_Nowak_001.pdf
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2003/ne_gtr312.pdf

And as the article points out, indians burned forest down, as a way to manage the lands and hunting, etc.

http://www.foresthistory.org/Education/Curriculum/Activity/activ1/essay.htm

And need I mention Manhattan, plus other large portions of North America were covered with ice a very long time ago, so probably no forests then.

Bottom line, you cannot prove there are less trees now, in the U.S., than 1776, maybe not less than even in 1600.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You did not address the Wikipedia link that I provided, which showed that the forestation of ALL types has gone down by 1/4 here in the states.

Quote:
I know for a fact that vast areas of the great plains have alot more trees now than there were

No, you do not. Produce evidence of this fact - if you can.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, in regard to my above statement, by personal and up close observation, throughout NW Oklahoma, there were few if any trees a hundred years ago, except in some areas or along rivers. Now, all towns are infested with trees, roadsides lined with them, timbers all over, and fields being taken over by trees, everywhere. Just on my Dad's farm, it had no trees, but now I would not venture to guess how many thousands there are. That is closeup observation, but I have traveled throughout this region, and see similar effects.

Which reminds me, when will somebody pay my Dad his carbon credits?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You did not address the Wikipedia link that I provided, which showed that the forestation of ALL types has gone down by 1/4 here in the states.

Quote:
I know for a fact that vast areas of the great plains have alot more trees now than there were

No, you do not. Produce evidence of this fact - if you can.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, in regard to my above statement, by personal and up close observation, throughout NW Oklahoma, there were few if any trees a hundred years ago, except in some areas or along rivers. Now, all towns are infested with trees, roadsides lined with them, timbers all over, and fields being taken over by trees, everywhere. Just on my Dad's farm, it had no trees, but now I would not venture to guess how many thousands there are.

Which reminds me, when will somebody pay him his carbon credits?

Ah; it was as I thought. You don't have any actual data to back up your contention, just anecdotal evidence, which if you recall, was exactly what I originally proposed. Your personal experiences are in no way proof of a larger trend.

As I said,

Quote:

. Just because you have some sort of idea that the little shithole corner of Oklahoma you live in has more trees then there used to be, doesn't change the fact that we have many less trees overall then a few centuries ago, or the fact that greater amounts of forest are a good thing for our environment.

Your decision to focus on the US only is also highly misleading, and not even material to the discussion; our environment is affected by trees whether they are in the US or not, and if you want to argue that there has not been massive deforestation of our world in the last two hundred years or so, you're an idiot.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Massive deforestation, nonsense, cyclops. I have traveled extensively throughout the Rocky Mountain west, from Arizona to Montana, covering virtually all areas, and deforestation in those areas is a myth, nonsense, period. And I have been to California many areas, eastern U.S., throughout the southeast U.S, Texas, etc. And my little corner of Oklahoma happens to cover only 2 or 3 hundred miles, plus Kansas, etc., not one farm.

Your sites prove nothing, but mine actually have some common sense information concerning "trees." Forget your old growth forests, no forest has been here forever, and a tree is a tree, whether it is old growth or not.

When you have proof, let me know.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Massive deforestation, nonsense, cyclops. I have traveled extensively throughout the Rocky Mountain west, from Arizona to Montana, covering virtually all areas, and deforestation in those areas is a myth, nonsense, period. And I have been to California many areas, eastern U.S., throughout the southeast U.S, Texas, etc. And my little corner of Oklahoma happens to cover only 2 or 3 hundred miles, plus Kansas, etc., not one farm.

Your sites prove nothing, but mine actually have some common sense information concerning "trees." Forget your old growth forests, no forest has been here forever, and a tree is a tree, whether it is old growth or not.

When you have proof, let me know.

I've already linked to proof. You have chosen to deny that proof without specifically challenging any of the findings. You have not offered any counter-proof; your posts on urban trees are good, but nowhere do they assert or prove that there are more trees in the US now then before European society arrived.

Massive deforestation of our world, Okie. Do you honestly believe that cutting down trees in other countries has nothing to do with the US? Please attempt to be specific when posting, as errors like this are harmful to your case.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As my site pointed out, forests do not equal trees. There are millions or billions of trees not in forests.

I have not studied the rest of the world, but it is not my responsibility to plant trees that they cut down. I am also skeptical of world forest assertions by tree huggers, but I don't have the data, if I get time, I could look that up as well. One thing evident, we no longer hear public information spots indicating how many acres being cut down every second, or at least I haven't. I think they were baloney. Calculations showed that everything would have been gone long ago if some of those claims were accurate.

0 Replies

To recap the link I posted, this is the important part:

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/01/liberals_cannot_see.html

"This means that for every 100 trees in an area defined as a forest, the non-forest areas add another 43 trees. Add that to the trees in the 60% forests and we are up to 85% of the number of trees we had 400 years ago.

Now while it is true that in earlier centuries the lumber industry raped our timberlands, they changed their method of operations over a century ago to managed plantations for their timber needs. In addition, these plantations produce timber at 5 to 10 times the average forest yield. What this means is that we need only one-fifth to one-tenth of previous forest space to have the same number of trees for timber. The plantations produce the same number of trees as do 20% of our forests. For those with a pencil, for every 100 trees in a forest there are 20 plantation trees; bringing our total tree count to 105%; that is, even with 40% fewer forests we have 105% of the trees we had 400 years ago."

And here is what this guy thinks:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm

I don't know how this could be determined, since there is no real way of
knowing exactly what forests looked like at any given time that far back in
history. Its likely that there are more trees in some places, like on the
great plains, where they have been widely planted around towns and home
sites; on the other hand much of what was forested land in the eastern U.S.
has been converted to agriculture and urban. Certainly there are more trees
now than in 1900, at the end of the great timber baron era of deforestation,
and especially since the 1930's depression years much marginal farmland has
been turned back to forest - but much of that was probably forested
originally anyway so its hard to say whether there has been any net gain.
And what exactly is meant by "more trees?" If you really mean the total
number of individual trees then this is probably a true statement since
virgin forests had relatively few large trees per acre, and have been
replaced by young forests with more but smaller trees per acre. But if you
mean total forested land I think it is a very debatable proposition.

I agree with the above. It is debatable, but is no way an established fact or provable that there are less trees now. In fact, I think the preponderance of evidence points the other way.

Another site:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-04/1018741400.Bt.r.html

And this site shows that just forests have improved markedly in the last 100 years, and this does not count the billions of trees planted that are not in forest areas:

http://www.forestlandowners.com/press/new-u-s-forest-service-data-reveals-positive-gains

Perhaps my perception is skewed slightly by the region I know best. My grandfather homesteaded a farm and personally said there were only 4 or 5 trees there in 1893, a couple threee along a creek, plus a couple oak trees on the prairie. And this was the way it was a very long time before he got there. There are now a couple thousand trees or more, probably, just on that farm alone. The same would be approximately true for up to a couple hundred miles or so in some directions from this locale. Call it anecdotal evidence if you want, but I call it reality, and I have traveled extensively in the region, and have talked to many people. I have personally witnessed it myself for over 50 years. And I have good reason to believe the phenomena I have observed is present in many many states, actually in almost a majority of states most likely to some degree or another.

Truth is there is probably no conclusive study that proves it one way or the other, but there are lots of reasons to believe my assertion and that you have no proof to the contrary. You certainly have been shown to be out of bounds for accusing me of really losing it. I think you are like most people, you have been fed a line, and you have bought it hook line and sinker without any healthy skepticism. There are lots of myths surrounding the enviro movement, and I think this is one of them.

Again, I am only pointing out U.S. only. If I have time, I may look into the world situation, but frankly I think that is another probable myth as to the seriousness of the problem of deforestation.

0 Replies

Not a valid argument anyway. Trees are okay, but they're ultimately not a good long-term solution; most of the carbon that the tree absorbs will be released later when it dies/rots. You can trap some carbon with trees, but it's not a perpetual solution, and we don't have any way to reforest ourselves out of possible global warming; there's no way we could possibly add enough forest to make that much of a difference.

Global warming isn't a product of deforestation. Sure, it'd make a little difference if we fired every tree on Earth, but the increase in CO2 is due to hydrocarbon energy use, and wood-burning is not the majority of that.

So buying carbon credits to plant trees is a pallative, not a plan. It makes people feel like they're doing something, but doesn't actually address the problem.

In many ways, their effect is negative, simply because of the moral implications. If it's wrong to be wealthy, then you shouldn't get off the hook because you've purchased an indulgence from a priest. If producing CO2 instead of conserving is wrong, similarly, you should not get off the hook because you've paid someone to plant a tree. This is especially the case if you're wealthy and consume significantly more energy than the average person; there's very little moral force involved when you call on people to make sacrifices that you're not willing to undergo yourself.

0 Replies

It's a long-term boon, non a short-term solution to global warming. There's little doubt that trees and forest lands not only provide beneficial environmental effects, they also are a renewable resource, and lumber is a singularly useful building material and can be made in to a gigantic number of desirable items.

I agree that carbon credits are not a replacement for living an environmentally balanced lifestyle. I think that those who are rich, and pay for carbon credits, would be better served increasing the efficiency of their homes and lifestyles; but I do not bemoan the option, or the ability to do so.

I put carbon credits in the same category as donating to charities for tax breaks - a position reflected in my original post on this subject here.

To which Okie responded:

Quote:

Uh, uh, uh, uh, cyclops, there are too many trees now in many places.

I think this is absolutely untrue. At the very least, they represent a resource to be harvested, one that renews itself; and that's a bad thing?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

One points out that not all trees produce suitable lumber, and that planting trees does not necessarily mean a lumber-bearing forest will result; you either have to have lumber forestry as your initial objective, or wait a very, very long time indeed, to efficiently harvest lumber. (And inefficiently harvesting it, of course, consumes yet more energy...)

Most plant-a-tree outfits are pretty specifically against the use of those trees as lumber, you know. Kind of against the point.

At any rate, the market sets a price for lumber; if the demand for lumber is great enough that it becomes more valuable than cleared space, then forests get planted for later harvest.

The biggest problem with carbon credits is that they don't scale. Right now, their cost is relatively low, because practically nobody is interested in purchasing them. Even so, there is far less in the way of carbon credits available than current carbon usage; it's simply not possible for more than a small fraction of the populace to offset their energy use with carbon credits, at any price.

0 Replies

In regard to carbon sequestration, why just trees anyway, doesn't most any plant, including grasses, bushes. shrubs, vines, weeds, etc. also do the same thing to various extent?

http://www.cinram.umn.edu/publications/landowners_guide1.5-1.pdf

I used to believe in Arbor Day, but my recent experiences tell me otherwise. There are way too many trees in some cities and towns, and I regularly see several tree trimming companies burning precious energy sawing trees down, trimming, removing stumps, etc., all a waste of energy, every single day, not to mention the damage done by fallen limbs and trees blown over, during ice storms, power outages, on and on. Then there are roots that get into sewage pipes, ruin sidewalks to be replaced, etc. We need some well placed, well planned trees, but there are too many trees generally and too many in the wrong places in many cities and towns.

I may be dumb, but I am not stupid, enough to plant more trees on my property. Removing one overgrown tree can cost a landowner well over a thousand bucks. No thanks.

0 Replies

Besides, I thought by the time a tree grows, dies, and rots, or is burned, it is a wash in terms of carbon sequestration, so long term where is the benefit?????......and short term doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway.

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

One points out that not all trees produce suitable lumber, and that planting trees does not necessarily mean a lumber-bearing forest will result; you either have to have lumber forestry as your initial objective, or wait a very, very long time indeed, to efficiently harvest lumber. (And inefficiently harvesting it, of course, consumes yet more energy...)

Most plant-a-tree outfits are pretty specifically against the use of those trees as lumber, you know. Kind of against the point.

At any rate, the market sets a price for lumber; if the demand for lumber is great enough that it becomes more valuable than cleared space, then forests get planted for later harvest.

The biggest problem with carbon credits is that they don't scale. Right now, their cost is relatively low, because practically nobody is interested in purchasing them. Even so, there is far less in the way of carbon credits available than current carbon usage; it's simply not possible for more than a small fraction of the populace to offset their energy use with carbon credits, at any price.

Ah, but lumber is only one of MANY uses for trees and wood.

Fruit trees produce edible food, a lot of it, with very little work on the part of the farmer, for decades.

Nut trees, the same.

Many trees are suitable for making small objects, or carving, or paneling, or any number of items which have nothing to do with lumber.

Trees also provide a huge benefit, one which you are all familiar with - shade. They also help provide water to the soil through root aeration, and are in general a healthy addition to almost any environment. And I suppose the fact that they produce fresh O2 isn't a bad thing either Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Prove there are less trees in the continental U.S. now than in 1776. Prove it.

Who said anything about the continental US? It's GLOBAL tree coverage that matters, ya maroon! Our environment doesn't just hover over our nation, self contained....

Just quit while you can, honestly.

But just to prove your bullshit wrong, here ya go.

Area of primary forests in the United States (lower 48)
(around 1620, top; and 1850 middle; 1920, bottom)

Quote:

Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away. Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html

More:

Quote:

Prior to the arrival of European-Americans about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 4 million square kilometers (1 billion acres) in 1600. For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated.[42] This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 3,080,000 km² (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 93,000 km² (23 million acres) of forest land is projected be lost by 2050[43], a 3% reduction from 1997. Other qualitative issues have been identified such as the continued loss of old-growth forest,[44] the increased fragmentation of forest lands, and the increased urbanization of forest land.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#United_States

Wikipedia reports a total drop by 1/4.

One F*CKING minute of googling, Okie. One minute.

Cycloptichorn

You do realize that the maps you posted are at best somebodies guess.

There is no way that anyone can say with any type of certainty how much forestation there was in the 1600's or the 1800's, and even in the 1920's its only a rough guess.
There was no way to adequately or accurately measure forestation until we had a way to get overhead shots,mainly sattelite.

0 Replies

Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know