Climate Activists Seek to Save the Planet by Cutting, Burying Trees

So, rakes, leaf blowers, what? We’re going to have to leave the borders wide open to get that done. Any idea how many acres of forest there are just in CA?
Controlled burns, timber harvesting, and fire cuts, moron.

They do it all over the rest of the US. :rolleyes-41:
 
That was already being done before the Sierra Club fucked things up with the spotted owl. They used to point to what they called 'clear cutting' where sections of forest were cleared of growth and say that was a bad thing but, actually, clear cutting allows for new growth. An overgrown forest has no room or sunlight for new growth. Wild fires were the way nature caused new growth. Timber harvesting all but stopped those huge wild fires but now we are back to that again. Nice going, 'environmentalists.' The only environment they hate is environments were humans can live.
Depend on the type of tree. Conifers produce less slash which decomposes rather quickly. Hardwood harvesting produces much more slash which takes years decompose and leaves the clearcuts looking like a war zone. Some never recover, others quickly become an impenetrable thicket for many years to come. Most people have never heard of the 'Logger's Motto" (credo),

"We're not here to make the woods look pretty."
 
Controlled burns, timber harvesting, and fire cuts, moron.

They do it all over the rest of the US. :rolleyes-41:
The idea is to avoid releasing the CO2 that the dead wood contains into the atmosphere. Was that not clear?
 
Depend on the type of tree. Conifers produce little slash which decomposes rather quickly. Hardwood harvesting produces much more slash which take years decompose and leaves the clearcuts looking like a war zone. Most people have never heard of the 'Logger's Motto" (credo),

"We're not here to make the woods look pretty."
Decomposing wood releases CO2. Given that the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in centuries, it matters little whether the wood decomposes in minutes (in a fire), in a month, a year or a decade.
 
That was already being done before the Sierra Club fucked things up with the spotted owl. They used to point to what they called 'clear cutting' where sections of forest were cleared of growth and say that was a bad thing but, actually, clear cutting allows for new growth. An overgrown forest has no room or sunlight for new growth. Wild fires were the way nature caused new growth. Timber harvesting all but stopped those huge wild fires but now we are back to that again. Nice going, 'environmentalists.' The only environment they hate is environments were humans can live.
I believe that environmentalists support sustainable timber harvesting. It's more labor intensive but makes more environmental and economic sense in the long run. Menominee County in Wisconsin is a great example of this.

 
Last edited:
Decomposing wood releases CO2. Given that the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in centuries, it matters little whether the wood decomposes in minutes (in a fire), in a month, a year or a decade.
Burning wood for fuel produces no more CO2 than decomposition, and replaces the burning (and processing) of some fossil fuel..

Proper logging, and better use of that timber in construction would have additional long-lasting positive effects regarding atmospheric CO2. It's a positive 'domino theory'.
 
Last edited:
Well, the tires on EV's wear out faster than ICE vehicles, so there's that.
Did you see that the largest source of microplastics around the world is tires grinding themselves to dust on our roadways? That began long before EVs.
 
Did you see that the largest source of microplastics around the world is tires grinding themselves to dust on our roadways? That began long before EVs.
EV's are hastening the process because of their weight. :omg:
 
So, rakes, leaf blowers, what? We’re going to have to leave the borders wide open to get that done. Any idea how many acres of forest there are just in CA?
In Ca, forest workers use fire to burn the biomass safely.
 
And their flat torque curves
The problem with the EV is not the motor, it is the massive amount of batteries being used. Hydrogen slashes a ton of weight and you get a long range performance of the motor.
 
In Ca, forest workers use fire to burn the biomass safely.
I see!
112822-WildFire-NB-AP-CM-1.jpg
 
View attachment 845648

And what do the powertrains (engine, cooling system, transmission, drive shaft(s) and differential) they replace weigh?
This explains the battery weight. *notice the Tesla has the heaviest weight battery and is the most common EV.

Current electric car batteries have an average weight of around 1,000 lbs, but they will vary depending on the vehicle – some have much heavier batteries while smaller vehicles may have lighter ones. For example, Tesla is one of the top EVs on the market, holding 66% of the market share. Their batteries can take you over 370 miles on a single charge, so it should come as no surprise that a Tesla battery is estimated to weigh up to a staggering 1,836 lbs. By comparison, the smaller vehicles can have batteries weighing well under 1000 lbs – over half the weight of a Tesla battery.

*Tesla offers the highest range prior to recharge. So you must lug around close to a ton of batteries as a result.
 
Controlled burns, timber harvesting, and fire cuts, moron.

They do it all over the rest of the US. :rolleyes-41:
Where does Trump wanting them to “clean their floors” fit in to this? My point is that here iwe have Trump looking for credit, because he “addressed the problem”, no matter how foolishly!
 
Which releases all the CO2 that tree spent its entire life sequestering.
What is your beef about CO2? However the forests I have seen where they were once raging with fire has the majority of trees still standing but dead.
 
Where does Trump wanting them to “clean their floors” fit in to this? My point is that here iwe have Trump looking for credit, because he “addressed the problem”, no matter how foolishly!
It's the same thing, dumbass. CA neglected to manage their forests for decades.

So when it goes, it all goes, like the Camp fire.
 
It's the same thing, dumbass. CA neglected to manage their forests for decades.

So when it goes, it all goes, like the Camp fire.
CA can only manage the CA forests. The Feds still own a good bit of Forests there.
 
Burning wood for fuel produces no more CO2 than decomposition, and replaces the burning (and processing) of some fossil fuel..
Forest fires and natural decomposition do not replace ANY fossil fuel use.
Proper logging, and better use of that timber in construction would have additional long-lasting positive effects regarding atmospheric CO2. It's a positive 'domino theory'.
This project does nothing to hinder "proper logging".
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top