[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/