Comments on: Last-Minute Nod to Farmers Could Undermine Climate Bill

By: Name

Name — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:08:58 +0000

So how exactly does buying carbon credits change the amount of carbon being produced. It does not. It will simply drive up the cost of living. This is insane. The Earths climate cycles. Always has, always will. This is all pollitical. It has nothing to do with climate change.

By: NateM

NateM — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:41:36 +0000

There are natural cycles but none have been so drastic as this. This cycle of warming has been far more rapid and drastic than any other in history and it is hard to justify saying that this is just natural. Just look at the IPPC reports; they come from a group of SCIENTISTS whose job it is to figure these things out. They acknowledge the presence of natural cycles but this current cycle is not natural. Furthermore, this article is talking about ethanol being potentially carbon neutral but says nothing of the fossil fuels necessary to plant, cultivate, and transport these materials around the U.S. Biofuels and ethanol are not a solution, rather another problem.

By: markimorgan

markimorgan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:52:02 +0000

You are assuming that the old growth forests are being burned. Much of the carbon is locked into wood that is marketed, in which case planting new growth forest may capture more CO2 than old growth forest. Forest management what a quandry.

By: markimorgan

markimorgan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:46:28 +0000

Gads where do I start! The accumulative methane in the Arctic region may be more responsible for the loss of long term arctic ice that CO2, along with the additional warming of areas that used to be covered by sea ice which increased surface albedo. We may very well be seeing a natural phenomena which we may (or may not) have accelerated. Think about it, the world is 2/3 covered in ocean. When the ocean temperature increases so does the EVP rate. The more water in the atmosphere the more precipitation on the 1/3 land mass. The more precipitation will cause heavier storms and more snowfall that doesn'e melt on the landmass, ultimately leading to more water ice on lande and evaporation in the oceans.
We may not be causing a “runawal greenhouse effetct” but another Ice age that is fortold to come sometime within Humans existance. If you look at the graphs from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age” you may notice that CO2 may be a trailing indicator of an Ice age rather than a precoursor to a “runawal greenhouse effetct.” We may or/ may not be a contributing effect, does it matter? More C02 may be the solution rather than the problem. We are part of the equation not all of it. Thus anything we do may be inconsiquential and what we think we are doing to help might actually hurt. Save the forests? yes, save humans next?, I dunno.

By: tomblakeslee

tomblakeslee — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:18:29 +0000

Burning old trees isn't “exactly the same as burning coal.” because old trees take in CO2 slower than new fast-growing biomass. There is an equilibrium in an old forest with decaying droppings from the trees putting out about the same amount of greenhouse gases as they take in. When they are replaced by fast-growing biomass there is a similar equilibrium except the heat is put to good use as the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. Both are sustainable but there is a one-time spike when the big old trees are burned (assuming the heat is captured). That spike, however, is no worse than the coal that would have otherwise been burned. A price to pay for eliminating coal burning in the future. In other words the savings doesn't really start till the first crop is burned.