[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FW: - Climate Change Hearings and the roll(?) of nuclear power





-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>

An: Franz Schoenhofer <franz.schoenhofer@chello.at>;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Datum: Freitag, 02. August 2002 03:00

Betreff: Re: FW: - Climate Change Hearings and the roll(?) of nuclear power







----- Original Message -----

From: "Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@chello.at>

> Cutting down

> forests like in South America and other areas of the world additionally

> reduces the absorption of CO2 by photosynthesis.



The natural South American rainforest (without logging) has no mechanism for

a carbon sink. Whatever CO2 is fixed by photosynthesis is either released by

creatures living in the forest when they eat the vegetation or by fires.



------------------------------------------------------

What I tried to express is, that the South American Forest is cut down at an

increasing rate. Whatever is cut down will end up in CO2 liberation at some

time. The clear cut area, which might be used for plantations of whatever

kind of fruits or for grass to be consumed by cattle, which end up as

McDonalds or Burger King hamburgers will sure bind less CO2 than a rain

forest. BTW the cattle will emit a lot of methane which is a well known gas

involved in the destruction of the ozone layer......

>From that I derive that cutting the rain forests will result in an increased

CO2 level in the atmosphere. I think that this is logic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



If you consider a managed forest with logging, you simply move the CO2

source away from the CO2 sink in space and time, similar to what happens in

a wheat field.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly what I wrote!



--------------------------------------------------------



If the USA is a carbon sink, wheat fields could be an

explanation for that, since the USA is a net grain exporter. I don't think

the US is a net lumber exporter, so I don't think managed forestry can be

used as an explanation.

------------------------------------------------------------



The CO2 "exported" by grain has first to be fixed. So wheat might be a

temporary sink. It is not only lumber - big fires in the USa like the ones

which are reported world wide, will cause the CO2 concentration to rise. The

recovery of forests will cause it to decline. The change will be marginal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------



Neither a natural forest, managed forestry or agriculture lock carbon away

for any length of time and can therefore be used to balance the burning of

fossil fuels. Deforestation is a bad thing for a variety of reasons (and

results in a one time emission of CO2), but continual fixing of CO2 and

combating the greenhouse effect by the forest is not a valid argument.





-------------------------------------------------------------



I agree, but my concerns were directed to the claim of "net import".



-------------------------------------------------------



(While forests do not combat the greenhouse effect by fixing carbon, a

deforested area can add to the greenhouse problem by producing methane.)





---------------------------------I can only agree - see me remark about

cattle for McDonalds hamburgers above.

-----------------------------------------



The  two mechanisms that I am aware of where carbon is fixed for a long time

are:



1. Sediments of seashells and corals become limestone. This happens in the

ocean. (If A-bomb testing kills the coral, the process stops. [Now this post

is relevant to the list again.])



-----------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry to say, this is mere nonsense. This has been put forward by some

"independent" Greenpeace members, disguising themselves as experts and

correlating the problems currently encountered with corals in the Pacific

Ocean to the French nuclear tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa. This is similar

nonsense like relating the birth of a child to the stork - a European fairy

tale. Also ciguatera - a disease caused by eating reef fish which have fed

on deceased corals - was related to the french bomb tests by the same

groups. While I am personally not a supporter of nuclear tests I have been

the head of the terrestrial group in the International Mururoa Project,

assessing the radiological impact of the French tests. The results of our

findings can be found in the very comprehensive report which has been

published by the IAEA - you can find it at the IAEA web-site.



Does your remark mean, that you believe in this nonsense?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------





2. Lakes become peat bogs. This happens in Canada and in other northern

places.



------------------------------

I guess, that the amount of CO2 trapped by peat bogs is really ridiculously

small compared to the CO2 emitted world wide.

---------------------------------------------------------





Best regards,



Franz















************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/