Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Hammock Camping] Re: Beeswax

Expand Messages
  • Ralph Oborn
    ... The idea is that wood in the forest (especially dead downed forest litter) will decompose soon anyway and release most of it s carbon as CO2 into the
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On 4/6/07, hacktorious <hacktorious@...> wrote:
      >
      > "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"
      >
      > NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
      > wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
      > reference for this information? Thanks.


      The idea is that wood in the forest (especially dead downed forest litter)
      will decompose soon anyway and release most of it's carbon as CO2 into the
      environment. Unlike fossil fuels that would have stayed intact in the ground
      from geological times (Hence: fossil fuels).

      Which is why I am skeptical about the benefit of planting trees to tie up
      carbon, within a few decades any carbon pulled from the atmosphere will be
      returned anyway.

      Ralph Oborn


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rick
      Getting off topic, but I learned about the long-term carbon cycle (calcium carbonate or limestone) from Bill Bryson s A History of Nearly Everything . As you
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Getting off topic, but I learned about the long-term carbon cycle
        (calcium carbonate or limestone) from Bill Bryson's "A History of Nearly
        Everything". As you know Bryson also wrote Walk in the Woods, in which
        he suffered because he had not discovered lightweight hiking, of which
        Hammock Camping is a descendant.

        Limestone eventually gets subducted into the Earth's magma, and the
        carbon is released as CO2, but it stays in a tied up form for a LONG
        time, unlike the carbon in vegetation.

        Rick

        Ralph Oborn wrote:
        > On 4/6/07, hacktorious <hacktorious@...> wrote:
        >> "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"
        >>
        >> NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
        >> wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
        >> reference for this information? Thanks.
        >
        >
        > The idea is that wood in the forest (especially dead downed forest litter)
        > will decompose soon anyway and release most of it's carbon as CO2 into the
        > environment. Unlike fossil fuels that would have stayed intact in the ground
        > from geological times (Hence: fossil fuels).
        >
        > Which is why I am skeptical about the benefit of planting trees to tie up
        > carbon, within a few decades any carbon pulled from the atmosphere will be
        > returned anyway.
        >
        > Ralph Oborn
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

        --
        Walk Well!

        Rick (Risk)

        *********************************
        http://www.imrisk.com
        author of
        A Wildly Successful 200 Mile Hike
        www.wayahpress.com
        *********************************
      • Scott
        That is an interesting concept, I have never thought of it that way. As far as planting trees, I think it is a good idea because it will help make up for all
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          That is an interesting concept, I have never thought of it that way.

          As far as planting trees, I think it is a good idea because it will help
          make up for all the loss due to deforestation. This is a tremendous amount
          of trees. Of course the combination of more trees with the number of
          existing automobiles could potentially make things worse.

          --
          Scott
          www.AntiFuel.com
          www.groups.yahoo.com/group/PATC

          Minds are like parachutes, they only function when they are open.

          On 4/6/07, Rick <ra1@...> wrote:
          >
          > Getting off topic, but I learned about the long-term carbon cycle
          > (calcium carbonate or limestone) from Bill Bryson's "A History of Nearly
          > Everything". As you know Bryson also wrote Walk in the Woods, in which
          > he suffered because he had not discovered lightweight hiking, of which
          > Hammock Camping is a descendant.
          >
          > Limestone eventually gets subducted into the Earth's magma, and the
          > carbon is released as CO2, but it stays in a tied up form for a LONG
          > time, unlike the carbon in vegetation.
          >
          > Rick
          >
          > Ralph Oborn wrote:
          > > On 4/6/07, hacktorious <hacktorious@... <hacktorious%40gmail.com>>
          > wrote:
          > >> "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"
          > >>
          > >> NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
          > >> wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
          > >> reference for this information? Thanks.
          > >
          > >
          > > The idea is that wood in the forest (especially dead downed forest
          > litter)
          > > will decompose soon anyway and release most of it's carbon as CO2 into
          > the
          > > environment. Unlike fossil fuels that would have stayed intact in the
          > ground
          > > from geological times (Hence: fossil fuels).
          > >
          > > Which is why I am skeptical about the benefit of planting trees to tie
          > up
          > > carbon, within a few decades any carbon pulled from the atmosphere will
          > be
          > > returned anyway.
          > >
          > > Ralph Oborn
          > >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ralph Oborn
          ... Nice tie in Rick (With a hangers knot I suppose) Ralph [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On 4/6/07, Rick <ra1@...> wrote:
            >
            > Getting off topic, but I learned about the long-term carbon cycle
            > (calcium carbonate or limestone) from Bill Bryson's "A History of Nearly
            > Everything". As you know Bryson also wrote Walk in the Woods, in which
            > he suffered because he had not discovered lightweight hiking, of which
            > Hammock Camping is a descendant.
            >
            > Limestone eventually gets subducted into the Earth's magma, and the
            > carbon is released as CO2, but it stays in a tied up form for a LONG
            > time, unlike the carbon in vegetation.
            >
            > Rick


            Nice tie in Rick (With a hangers knot I suppose)

            Ralph


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • C C Wayah
            But trees do convert C02 to carbom and relese 02 in photosynthesis while liveing. So they have a natural conversion process that industry does not. I;ve read
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              But trees do convert C02 to carbom and relese 02
              in photosynthesis while liveing. So they have a natural
              conversion process that industry does not.

              I;ve read large cities would quickly litterialy suffocate if it weren';t for
              the tress with the winds blowing near them from the forested areass around
              them I'm guessing that the life spoan of a tree out converts the C02 it
              does releae when it dies.

              Rogene


              Subject: Re: [Hammock Camping] Re: Beeswax


              > That is an interesting concept, I have never thought of it that way.
              >
              > As far as planting trees, I think it is a good idea because it will help
              > make up for all the loss due to deforestation. This is a tremendous
              > amount
              > of trees. Of course the combination of more trees with the number of
              > existing automobiles could potentially make things worse.
            • Ralph Oborn
              I;ve read large cities would quickly litterialy suffocate if it weren ;t for the tress with the winds blowing near them from the forested areass around them
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I;ve read large cities would quickly litterialy suffocate if it weren';t for
                the tress with the winds blowing near them from the forested areass around
                them I'm guessing that the life spoan of a tree out converts the C02 it
                does releae when it dies.

                Rogene


                Sorry, every bit of CO2 a tree stores as carbohydrates comes out again as it
                decomposes to CO2, UNLESS it gets buried in a swamp and converted to coal
                etc.

                I'm not saying that trees are bad, I'm just saying that they are only a
                temporary carbon storage device (for a few decades).


                Ralph

                Besides we need them to hang hammocks.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jack Rowe
                Much of the carbon tied up in trees goes into the soil s organic matter upon tree s death...soil is now considered to hold more carbon (humus and live biomass)
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 7, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Much of the carbon tied up in trees goes into the soil's organic matter upon tree's death...soil is now considered to hold more carbon (humus and live biomass) than above-ground sources.

                  re: hammock tree damage, if the same tree were used over and over like a campsite, I think it would suffer greatly. Viva stealth camping!

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Cara Lin Bridgman
                  ... Burning anything produces CO2, but pound for pound, I assume wood produces less CO2 than fossil fuels. Of the fossil fuels (data from Wright & Nebel 2002.
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 8, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    hacktorious wrote:
                    > "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"
                    >
                    > NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
                    > wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
                    > reference for this information? Thanks.


                    Burning anything produces CO2, but pound for pound, I assume wood
                    produces less CO2 than fossil fuels. Of the fossil fuels (data from
                    Wright & Nebel 2002. Environmental Science: Towards a Sustainable
                    Future), coal is the big baddie. It produces almost twice as much CO2
                    as natural gas. Gasoline produces about 1.3 times as much as natural gas.

                    The nice thing about burning wood is that it can be much more efficient
                    than burning fossil fuels, especially if you're using an efficient wood
                    burning stove. The problem with all the other sources (alcohol,
                    canisters, esbit, white gas) is that it takes energy (often
                    petrochemical) and water to harvest it and to make it. When you're
                    burning alcohol, there's a net energy loss: harvest, fermentation,
                    distillation, burning. The distilling, especially, requires lots of
                    energy. Just think how the revenue officers tracked down stills during
                    prohibition. For processing esbit and natural gas and white gas, you
                    have the same problem. We're not burning the stuff exactly as it comes
                    out of the ground, we have to use energy (usually by burning oil) to
                    turn it into a usable form. And then there's the packaging and the
                    energy required to make and recycle it.

                    Now, the real problem with burning wood is: where did the wood come
                    from? Folks in Europe recently discovered this problem with their
                    palm-oil ethanol. Burning ethanol made from palm oil was great for
                    lowering EU's CO2. The problem was, it was increasing the planet's
                    atmospheric CO2. This was because Indonesia was (and is) cutting down
                    (and burning) tropical forest to plant palm trees for palm oil.

                    So, the point really isn't to plant trees, but to stop deforestation.
                    There is no way that new plantations of baby trees (or even 40-year-old
                    plantations of young trees) can capture and hold more CO2 than old
                    forests. It's not just the CO2 in the trees, it's the CO2 that's been
                    pumped into the ground as organic matter.

                    And let's face it, a plantation full of baby trees is no place to hang a
                    hammock. Baby trees are too bushy and too small. You'll end up
                    sleeping on the ground. And the ground won't be any good for sleeping
                    because it won't have that cushiony organic layer.

                    CL
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.