A curious thing happened at Tuesday’s morning meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when the panel’s infamous climate-change skeptic, James Inhofe (R-Okla.), cited NASA climatologist Jim Hansen in his screed against the House climate bill.
Yes, this is the same James Inhofe who once called climate change the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” And this is the same James Hansen who has been called the “the father of global warming,” the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has repeatedly called for dramatic action to fight global warming.
Hansen, like Inhofe, is no fan of the Waxman-Markey bill. But for Inhofe—a global warming denier—to cite Hansen is irony bordering on satire. Hansen, after all, doesn’t think the climate bill that passed in the House last month is strong enough to adequately address the problem of climate change.
Inhofe said at Tuesday’s hearing that he agreed with Hansen that the Waxman-Markey bill is “not going to make any change” in the climate. “And he’s Mr. Greenhouse Gas,” added Inhofe.
In reality, Hansen acknowledges that climate change is caused by man-made, heat-trapping emissions, whereas Inhofe does not. And Hansen has said that he believes steps can be taken by the international community to combat global warming. Inhofe, meanwhile, thinks nothing humans do affect the Earth’s climate.
It appears that Inhofe isn’t alone. Skeptic Steve Milloy posted a piece on the Green Hell blog on Tuesday titled “Why we should love James Hansen.” He argues:
Yes, NASA’s James Hansen is the ultra-global warming alarmist. Yes, he has called for war crimes trials for global warming “deniers.” But right now, Hansen should be a our best friend.
Like us, Hansen opposes the Waxman-Markey bill. He calls it the “counterfeit climate bill” and likens its cap-and-trade provisions to a Ponzi scheme.
It now seems that if Hansen had his way, he’d put Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey on trial along with the other “deniers.”
Sure, our reasoning differs from Hansen’s — we think Waxman-Markey is a junk science-fueled Marxist-socialist political power grab sugar-coated with a corporate welfare honey pot, while Hansen believes that Waxman-Markey is too little, too late in terms of stopping the dreaded global warming — but we do have the same goal for now.
Former Inhofe staffer Marc Morano, who now runs the skeptic site ClimateDepot.com, tweeted the story shortly thereafter: “Go Jim, go! Why we should love James Hansen.”
Yes, it appears in denier land, the enemy of your enemy – in this case, the Waxman-Markey bill – is your friend. At least for now.
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Threaded
Rmoen Posted 12:12 pm
14 Jul 2009
-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
Permalink
marshall Posted 5:21 am
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
Mary C. Serreze Posted 6:33 am
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
EES Posted 10:10 am
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 11:15 am
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:41 pm
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
Mary C. Serreze Posted 4:31 pm
15 Jul 2009
Permalink
Jana Chicoine Posted 4:12 am
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 7:56 am
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 7:59 am
16 Jul 2009
an eighty year old tree would not be incinerated unless it was rotting,
or of extremely poor growth form (and probably rotting). It is more
likely that the year range for biomass would be between 20-50 yrs for
trees, somewhere around 30 is when it becomes valuable, but it could be
as soon as 20 yrs. Currently, what happens in the woods anyway due to a
lack of demand for poor growth trees is that they get left behind
(growing), while the good and fast growing trees get taken out and sold
for quite a bit of money. So, essentially, while you still see trees
and a 'forest', it is degraded. Studies by several colleagues have been
showing that eighty percent of the woods that you have seen have been
exploitatively cut in the past 30-40 years, and as a result forests'
genetic legacy suffers (e.g. Munsell and Germaine 2007, Vickery et al.
2009). So, essentially, by campaigning against renewable woody biomass
energy, you are dooming the forests that you appear to care about. Face
it, no matter how hard you try, those forests will be cut as soon as
the landowner's kid decides to go to a nice (expensive) college or for
a myriad of other reasons. It is up to the markets to decide (or at
least influence) how well* the woods are going to be cut.*If you aren't familiar with what foresters do, please educate yourself, take a class in silviculture, or just read up on it.2)
The woody biomass also includes willow biomass (coppice) plantations,
which produce a larger amount of biomass per year than forests. On top
of that, these plantations take up CO2 for only three years before
incineration.3) "The CO2 floating around for centuries" is a
strawman, if I ever saw one, since the CO2 taken up by plants is CO2,
doesn't matter if it came from three centuries in the past or from
yesterday, its effects in the atmosphere are the same.4) Every
study that I have seen with co-firing power plants shows that air
pollution (soot, SO2, NOx) is decreased post-stack scrubbers (without
changing the scrubbers), while the CO2 efflux changes are negligible.
Permalink
BS busters Posted 9:33 am
16 Jul 2009
st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:14 am
16 Jul 2009
I never claimed that biomass was perfectly carbon neutral, but it is carbon neutral by comparison to ANY fossil fuel-feedstock power plant. I also never claimed that it would be the best solution, either, since it is probably better to use biomass for heating, since much less is lost during inefficiencies of producing and transfering energy via transmission lines. Wind, solar, geothermal, and the remainder of the renewable energy types are well suited for energy generation (maybe geothermal not so much, but whatever), while wood is good for heating. Also, there is not enough tree GROWTH in NYS to keep everyone warm in NYS, it's only good for maybe 1 -1.5 million homes per year. That's still a lot of new carbon kept out of the atmosphere.
Permalink
Jana Chicoine Posted 11:00 am
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
megaloptera Posted 11:21 am
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
BS busters Posted 11:25 am
16 Jul 2009
have the same rational opinion. Please
don’t call me Mary, my wife would not appreciate it. Flippantly dismissing valid and cited points in my own report with cheap
shot labels such as “NIMBY handouts” without addressing the facts themselves exposes
your tenuous grasp of the issue. If you can look beyond your own timber industry absorbed propaganda, you
might be shocked yourself. Clearcuts and
other even-aged management techniques are the most destructive type of logging and
the “clearcutting for wildlife” argument
is nothing but industry sponsored, think tank generated, focus group tested……BS.
The few species of wildlife that
industry claims are “helped” by clearcuts are often hunted, and are dwarfed by
the hundreds or thousands negatively impacted by the fragmentation of the forest.
In any case, how exactly did wildlife
manage to do so well before man was around to clearcut for them? Please
spare me the Indian argument, that was very localized and they cleared the
understory, they did not clearcut the forest. In any case, do not take my word for it take the word of 600 Scientists
including world re-known biologist E.O. Wilson who collectively stated the
following: “Clearcutting and other even
aged silvicultural practices and timber road construction have caused
widespread forest ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. The result is species
extinction, soil erosion, flooding, destabilizing climate change, the loss of
ecological processes, declining water quality, diminishing commercial and sport
fisheries”……“Even-age logging includes the application of
clearcutting, high grading, seed-tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, or any
other logging method in a manner inconsistent with selection management.” According to these
scientists, clear-cutting and other forms of even-age logging operations:Cause significant
deleterious effects on native biodiversity, by reducing
habitat and food for cavity-nesting birds and insectivores Disrupt the soil surface,
compact organic layers and expose the soil to direct sunlight and precipitationDeplete the habitat of
deep-forest species of animals, including endangered and threatened
speciesReduce habitat and food
supplies which disrupt the lines of dependency among species and
their food resources and thereby jeopardize critical ecosystem function,
including limiting outbreaks of destructive insect populations Render soil increasingly sensitive to
acid deposits by causing a decline of soil wood and coarse woody
debris which reduces the capacity of soil to retain water and
nutrients, which in turn increases soil heat and impairs soil’s
ability to maintain protective carbon compounds on the soil surfaceDisrupt the run-off
restraining capabilities of roots and low-lying vegetation, resulting in
soil erosion, the leaching of nutrients, a reduction in the biological
content of soil, and the impoverishment of soilIncrease harmful edge
effects, including blow-downs, invasions by weed species, and heavier
losses to predators and competitors.Limit areas where the
public can satisfy an expanding need for recreation and decrease the
recreational value of land.Replace forests with a
surplus of clearings that grow into relatively impenetrable thickets
of saplingsFrequently lead to the
death of immobile species and the very young of mobile species of wildlifeAggravate global climate
change by decreasing the capability of the soil to retain carbon,
and during the critical periods of felling and site preparation,
reducing the capacity of the biomass to process and to store carbon, with
a resultant loss of stored carbon to the atmosphere.Increase stream
sedimentation and the silting of stream bottoms, causing a decline in
water quality and the impairment of life cycles and spawning
processes of aquatic life from benthic organisms to large fish which
in turn causes a depletion of the sport and commercial fisheriesCause harmful and in
many cases, irreversible, damage to forest species and forest
ecosystemsIn areas
where logging occurs, these scientists call for individual tree selection
management which retains the natural forest structure and function, focuses
on long-term rather than short-term management, works with, rather than
against the checks and balances inherent in natural processes, and permits
the forest to go through the natural stages of succession to develop a
forest with old growth ecological functions. Additionally, selective logging is more job intensive, and
therefore provides more employment and produces higher quality sawlogs
than clear-cutting and even-age logging On the CO2 issue again, it doesn’t matter how long the carbon has been
stored, it just matters that it is stored today. What matters is where we are today, and how
much carbon we release today in comparison to how much is taken up. Stick your head in the ground if you want, but
the fact is by the biomass plants own numbers, that burning trees releases more
CO2 per MWhr than burning fossil fuels. Ahem… Regarding the yield functions, old forests do continue to absorb carbon,
despite claims otherwise by industry. Also,
faster growth stages of younger tree re-growth are just faster growth rates,
not faster growth volumes. The volume
from a fast growth rate on a tiny tree is nothing compared to the volume of a
slower growth rate on a large tree. Also,
a young tree re-growing is just returning to the original place where the tree
was before it was cut. In the meantime,
the uncut tree would have grown more and stored more carbon. The new tree will never catch up with an
unlogged tree until the death of that tree, well beyond the lifetime of anyone
reading this post and well beyond our critical timeline to do something about
the CO2 problem. Storage in wood products is irrelevant to this discussion because we are
talking about burning the trees for biomass. For those who made it this far, please take a look at our website to see the
Massachusetts Chainsaw Massacre: www.maforests.org/ Take it easy Chris
Permalink
Mary C. Serreze Posted 12:18 pm
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:39 pm
16 Jul 2009
Permalink
megaloptera Posted 5:30 am
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
Jana Chicoine Posted 5:44 am
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
Jana Chicoine Posted 7:48 am
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:26 am
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:26 pm
17 Jul 2009
will take your points one at a time, and attempt to show you that the
'facts' in your case are only one side of the story. Further, what's
wrong with hunting?I will provide a quick crash course in silviculture:Even-aged regeneration systems include clearcuts (and derivations, such as strip clearcuts), shelterwoods, and seed tree cuts. The most predominant even-aged system is shelterwood, due to its ability to temper the regenerative niche at the ground level by retaining about 30-40% of basal area. These trees also provide a seed source for future trees. Major detractors is the low financial return on the first entry to the stand to remove the low-value wood. The second entry typically brings in a much higher return. Clearcuts are typically done if shade intolerant species, such as birches, cherries and ashes are desired in higher proportions than shade tolerant species, which are proportionately more common with shelterwoods. Seed tree is in between clearcut and shelterwood cuts, with maybe 5-10% of the basal area. Typically done to provide seed and not temper the soil-level environment, so higher proportions of shade intolerants are expected. Furthermore, most well-done clearcuts (but many are reactionary, after an insect outbreak, for example) are done following a thinning 10-15 years prior, to provide advance regeneration, in which case there will be little to no lag time in tree cover at a site.Uneven-aged regeneration systems include single-tree selection systems include single-tree, group, patch and hybrid selection systems. The main characteristic of these systems is the presence of multiple age classes in a stand. Single-tree is self explanatory, with typically a high level of shade, and thus typically a low species diversity, primarily sugar maple and beech are the only two species that dominate the composition, with beech becoming a pest due to beech bark disease. Group cut typically takes three to five trees, and thus provides a little more sunlight, but typically not enough for even intermediate shade tolerant trees, in other words you might see a red maple or an ash, occasionally. Patch cuts are really a tiny clearcut, about 1/2 - 1 acre in size maximum, which provide a larger proportion of sunlight, so that there is more shade intermediate and shade intolerant species. Hybrid systems are a combination of the three previous depending on the stand and creativity of the forester. 1) Cause significant
deleterious effects on native biodiversity, by reducing
habitat and food for cavity-nesting birds and insectivores Point well taken: cavity-nesting birds will suffer with a complete clearcut. Most even-aged systems today leave one snag per 3-5 acres, which has been shown to not have any adverse effects on cavity-nesters and insectivores. Furthermore, a late successional forest is species
poor, with mid-successional forests having the largest combination of
tree species, which presumably also has an effect down the trophic
chain. 2) Disrupt the soil surface,
compact organic layers and expose the soil to direct sunlight and precipitation This
one is true, however most even-aged systems have a 75-80% tree seedling
cover within 3 years. Also keep in mind that the first two of the
points apply as much, if not more with uneven-aged systems, since over
the course of a century, an uneven-aged system could have as many as 7,
and rarely fewer than 4 entries into a stand, whereas even-aged systems
usually have 1 or 2. Ideally, in both cases, soil damage is minimizedby using a good road layout and appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). 3) Deplete the habitat of
deep-forest species of animals, including endangered and threatened
species I'm
not sure that this one is true in the northeast, considering the
majority of out endangered and threatened birds are open-field
migratory songbirds. In fact, large openings benefit many, if not most,
endangered and threatened species. The majority of threatened and
endangered plants occur in bogs and wetlands, places that are typically
off-limits to commercial logging, whether by practicality,
merchantability or regulations. 4) Reduce habitat and food
supplies which disrupt the lines of dependency among species and
their food resources and thereby jeopardize critical ecosystem function,
including limiting outbreaks of destructive insect populations New
York State is currently about 60% forested. Prior alternative uses were
agriculture: a low of about 10% forested in early 20th century, or
housing development, which consistently encroaches on forestland and
greenspace. Forestry keeps forests, and even-aged regeneration systems
are a part of the mix, particularly if we don't want only sugar maple
and beech. 5) Render soil increasingly sensitive to
acid deposits by causing a decline of soil wood and coarse woody
debris which reduces the capacity of soil to retain water and
nutrients, which in turn increases soil heat and impairs soil’s
ability to maintain protective carbon compounds on the soil surface I think that there's
a bit of confusion here: organic matter (OM), while exceedingly good
for soil, actually acidifies soil through tannic and carbonic acid. The
story is more complicated than that, once you account for acidic
precipitation, but acid rain problem is no longer the major issue, due
to cap-and-trade systems of the seventies and eighties. Furthermore,
base cation poor soils are poorly buffered against acidic deposition,
and in most cases the damage was done during the first wave of acidic
deposition.In base cation-rich soils, OM does not provide buffering against acidic deposition as much as the cations do. 6) Disrupt the run-off
restraining capabilities of roots and low-lying vegetation, resulting in
soil erosion, the leaching of nutrients, a reduction in the biological
content of soil, and the impoverishment of soil Two factors: one, roots are not removed, and two, these effects last only about 3-5 years. The impacts on soils are pretty dramatic, but the impact is directly related with the amount of canopy retained. 7) Increase harmful edge
effects, including blow-downs, invasions by weed species, and heavier
losses to predators and competitors.This is a screwy one, since it is a counterargument to previous points: weedy species increase biodiversity, blow-downs can occur, but that actually adds to OM, and heavier losses to predators and competitors of what? Really this statement looks good, but actually does not make much sense. 8) Limit areas where the
public can satisfy an expanding need for recreation and decrease the
recreational value of land. This, in my opinion is the single best argument in the list, not only because it directly addresses the reasons that most clearcuts are opposed, but also gets at the real sociological root of the problem. Forest stands post-cutting does not look pretty, no matter whether even- or uneven-aged, except that with even-aged, more is visible. The aesthetics are clearly deteriorated. However, perceptions of beauty are about as individual as DNA, and I have even heard a few people who enjoy the way a clearcut looks. I personally do not find it appealing, but neither does the shifting population. This is the reason for why I asked the question as to where you were from, the scientific consensus that I have heard is that as the population has shifted from rural to urban-suburban communities, the idea of the 'working landscape' has shifted to 'forests for recreation'. It's not fun recreating in places that don't look pretty and thus most urbanites are opposed to even-aged or really any tree cutting. Most rural people know that plants grow, and grow pretty well, they also know that they need to clear land for agriculture, thus many rural people like open spaces. It's not rare to see a 5-7 acre mowed lawn adjacent to rural homes, because that is what they value. Personally, I do not find that appealing, but to each his own. Ultimately, and THIS is what I would like to stress, opposition to even-aged silviculture is due to personal choice based on aesthetics rather than any true scientific reason.9) Replace forests with a
surplus of clearings that grow into relatively impenetrable thickets
of saplings This is directly related to the previous statement, and actually disregards the needs of open-field/shrub dependent species and thus is opposed to the 1st statement.10) Frequently lead to the
death of immobile species and the very young of mobile species of wildlifeIt's true for the latter. Not sure what the immobile species are that you are talking about. This statement is aimed at the emotions of PETA types, and while I cannot defend this, nearly all species affected are not threatened. There are two factors that are important with this: season of cutting, since there are no young during winter, when more than half of the lands are cut, and regulations and training workshops offered to the loggers, as well as leaving wildlife trees.11) Aggravate global climate
change by decreasing the capability of the soil to retain carbon,
and during the critical periods of felling and site preparation,
reducing the capacity of the biomass to process and to store carbon, with
a resultant loss of stored carbon to the atmosphere. This is important during the first 3-5 years after a clearcut (not shelterwood), and becomes decreasingly and nearly exponentially unimportant after.12) Increase stream
sedimentation and the silting of stream bottoms, causing a decline in
water quality and the impairment of life cycles and spawning
processes of aquatic life from benthic organisms to large fish which
in turn causes a depletion of the sport and commercial fisheries BMPs require loggers to leave a buffer around any waterways of varying width, depending on the slope, precisely to protect the streams. Stream crossings are done using temporary bridges. The few times, where this is not true is with a gullible landowner, open to an exploitative logger, who will most likely cream and high-grade, put his roads through wet areas and conduct stream crossing by simply going straight through a stream. I didn't say there weren't unethical people out there, but this can be eliminated by having a certified forester or at least someone who has the appropriate credentials.13) Cause harmful and in
many cases, irreversible, damage to forest species and forest
ecosystems This is a good rhetorical ploy, because it really doesn't mean anything, and thus it is irrefutable. We have been talking about this precise thing the entire time, and so far I have showed that there is little irreverisble damage to "forest species and forest ecosystems" and furthermore, I have attempted to point out that "harmful" is not only predominantly a strong value judgement without scientific backing, but is also not quite true from a value standpoint.14) In areas
where logging occurs, these scientists call for individual tree selection
management which retains the natural forest structure and function, focuses
on long-term rather than short-term management, works with, rather than
against the checks and balances inherent in natural processes, and permits
the forest to go through the natural stages of succession to develop a
forest with old growth ecological functions. Additionally, selective logging is more job intensive, and
therefore provides more employment and produces higher quality sawlogs
than clear-cutting and even-age logging The above statement is not true, for many of the previous reasons, but also because single-tree selection system is geared only for late successional species, and actually erases any succession. Old-growth forests are not diverse, and are not particularly productive in terms of C sequestration. Selective logging has the potential to be more job intensive, but this actually may reduce the income of the loggers since they are not paid by the hour but by the job. Also, do you think it costs more or less to cut down every single tree if you're only going to sell 60% of the trees and nearly all of the income will be from 10-20% of the trees, as is typical in a clearcut?Furthermore, diameter-limit and high-grading cuts are the least job intensive and the most profitable cuts, and to most laymen would look like a single-tree selection system. These are the cuts that will deplete the forest genetics, forest stocking and soil much, much more than any silvicultural system. P.S. Looking at how much I wrote, I'm afraid you won't read the response, and thus I will have wasted my time, but there's always hope, isn't there?
Permalink
megaloptera Posted 1:52 pm
17 Jul 2009
So I checked it out:
http://www.esf.edu/willow/
And there it is on page 395: the "carbon neutral myth" that biomass burning is "carbon neutral."
With all due respect to the authors, their complicated analysis falls short when it insists on ignoring the CO2 emissions from burning. I'm glad you agree biomass forest incinerators should be required to buy offsets and account for their CO2, but I still don't see how willow trees reabsorb the approximately 500,000 tons of CO2 per year generated by the average wood burning 50MW biomass burner. Can you explain how this would occur within a one year period if the willow trees were all growing at the same time that the wood was being burned?It seems to me it takes seconds to burn a tree in a biomass incinerator but years to grow one back, speedy willows aside.
That climate crisis just won't go away, and the Earth's forests and oceans are already overloaded with CO2. Those willows will have to work some pretty special magic to dig us out of this hole, while Congress subsidizes 700,000,000 tons of CO2 per year from biomass burning, we'll need lots of magic willow.I'm all ears: still waiting to hear some common sense, instead of hocus pocus.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:36 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
BS busters Posted 5:59 pm
17 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:22 am
18 Jul 2009
Permalink
BS busters Posted 12:25 pm
18 Jul 2009
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> It is not true that the species claimed to "benefit" from
clearcutting are not game species. The Woodcock and Ruffed Grouse are the
poster children for clearcutting to "help" wildlife, yet the Woodcock
is said to be "declining due to logging and land development on the bird's
breeding grounds responsible for the diminishing bird count" and the
Ruffed Grouse is said to "prefer dim and quiet woods, deep thickets, or
sheltered swamps" and "doesn't like open fields, and will rarely, if
never, be found there" and "needs a forested region, so this is
another animal that could be affected by
extensive deforestation." Pearson.For the record....$0 income and about negative -$2,000 so far to pay for ink
cartridges to print hand-outs to counter the relentless, well funded industry
propaganda following the lead of George Bush's efforts touting chopping down
trees as the "healthy forests" initiative, polluting the air for
"clear skies", clearcutting to "help" wildlife and burning
the forest for "carbon neutrality". Just more shameless,
simplistic, greenwashed BS for personal monetary goals at the expense of the
future for all of us. This discussion was about cutting forests for biomass, not for wood, so please
get it straight...cutting existing forests for electric production is WORSE
than fossil fuels....and will just make our predicament worse. We need to
get away from combustion and particularly shouldnt be burning coal or forests.
Forest Biomass = 3,300 lbs CO2/MWhr Coal = 2,100 lbs CO2/MWhr Oil = 1,900 lbs CO2/MWhr Gas = 1,350 lbs CO2/MWhrFore citations see: http://www.maforests.org/Biomess.pdf
"MORE" CARBON NEUTRAL ??? .......JUST MORE GREENWASHING.
Permalink
Mary C. Serreze Posted 1:22 pm
18 Jul 2009
Permalink
megaloptera Posted 4:51 pm
19 Jul 2009
You say you have "no idea what I am talking about" when I refer to "page 395."What I am referring to is YOUR article: the Keoleian and Volk article in the Critical Reviews in Plant Science (2005) that is on the website you posted. You cite this article in support of your assertion that biomass burning using willow trees is a legitimate "renewable energy resource" because it is carbon neutral. There is a fatal flaw in this article however: the article does not count the CO2 emissions from burning the willow trees to produce energy. Why isn't this CO2 emission number contained in the authors' analysis of the "carbon footprint" of burning willow trees to produce electricity?Until you show me a "lifecycle analysis" article that includes the CO2 emissions from burning willow trees in a biomass incinerator articles such as Keoleian and Volk are just more shuck and jive: scientists dancing around the key issue here: CO2 emissions from combustion of the stuff.I still say: show me the goods.
Permalink
vbstenswick Posted 11:12 pm
19 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 9:05 am
20 Jul 2009
Permalink
BS busters Posted 10:19 am
20 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:01 am
20 Jul 2009
Permalink
BS busters Posted 11:04 am
20 Jul 2009
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:24 am
20 Jul 2009
Permalink
BS busters Posted 11:50 am
20 Jul 2009
Permalink
BS busters Posted 12:13 pm
20 Jul 2009
Permalink
BS busters Posted 10:58 am
22 Jul 2009
Permalink