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

Re: [Hammock Camping] Re: Beeswax

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
      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 2 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
        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 3 of 21 , Apr 7, 2007
          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 4 of 21 , Apr 8, 2007
            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.