UncleEbenezer wrote:servodude wrote:
At one level it doesn't matter where the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from - it all causes the same problem. From that perspective to claim log generated emissions are better is Horlicks. Any "capture" after the event would equally apply to CO2 from anywhere and you might also apply the "it's ok a tree will catch it" logic to all of it (and with enough trees being planted that would work)
Exactly.
Logs however are a sustainable source of fuel - you can replace them in a relatively short time scale. Which you can't do with other sources given our current shortage of dinosaurs and the geological timescales involved in rendering them in to easily moved material.
-sd
That is
Locally true. But
Globally it could only work if that supply of logs - and more importantly the land they grow on - satisfied all our needs without deforestation. There's nothing sustainable about a small elite using a locally sustainable resource. Unless you eliminate the rest of humanity.
Nature's balance has that woodland gradually removing CO2 long-term from the atmosphere. Yes, it's mostly in a cycle, but some of it is being long-term removed, going from biomass through mulch to forms like soil, peat, and sometimes right up to fossil hydrocarbons. The land you've partially removed from that process by growing trees to burn (or for other non-natural purposes) is part of the problem. Yes it's a tiny part[1], but it's bigger than the gas I as a single household burn, despite that being fossil.
[1] Though where actual deforestation is happening and has side-effects, there's nothing tiny about the local consequences. Example: the Grapes of Wrath. Or many famines throughout history including today, not to mention conflict over scarce resources.
I don't disagree.
But I think there's been a tendency to go "well it doesn't solve all of it so why bother" around most of "this stuff" since we worked out there needed to be action; and that's a bit self defeating.
As if, because we haven't capped the temp rise to 1.5deg letting it hit 4 won't make a difference - screwing up one target doesn't mean you burst the ball and walk off the pitch.
If you can do things "better" it will still be an improvement (over where you would have ended up)
And I think aiming to do stuff "better" is a more palatable, practical and politically achievable goal than telling everyone it's sackcloth, lentils and rolling blackouts for the foreseeable future.
But somehow from most sides it's often presented as "all or nothing" - and anyways the Chinese won't do it
(as if I don't get solar panels and batteries from them)
We can't fix it all at once - and we certainly won't get much done if we're waiting until we can
I think it needs reframed as a maximal efficiency problem; we've got resources, they come at a cost to use, how do we get the best long-term return?
-sd
