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

Re: [Hammock Camping] Re: Beeswax

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Apr 6 4:51 PM
    • 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 2 of 21 , Apr 7 7:31 AM
      • 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 3 of 21 , Apr 8 1:33 AM
        • 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.