Global warming and burning firewood

[Bermie]

The earth stores carbon in three ways:
CO2 in the atmosphere
CO2 dissolved in the oceans
Carbon stored in limestone, coal and oil

CO2 levels have varied widely in earth's history. When there's a lot in the atmosphere, plankton and jungle grow and convert it to solids and a lot gets dissolved in the oceans. This takes place over millions of years and is a normal cycle.
Human beings have only been around for 100,000 years. We can't survive in some of the extreme conditions that are normal on the Grand Scale of things. We're actually pretty fragile in that sense, and are unlikely to survive, as a species, as long as dinosaurs did.
If we are pushing the atmospheric levels of carbon too high, we're doing it by converting the long term storage (coal, oil) into atmospheric carbon. You get a lot of gaseous CO2 from just a little oil.
That's why burning 1 million BTUs of wood, is carbon-neutral; the tree sucked CO2 out of the air and you're putting it back. You haven't taken any carbon out of the long-term storage.
1 million BTUs of oil adds to the CO2 in the air without removing it first like the tree did.
That is a simple version of the carbon cycle in earth's geology, not a liberal plot.
There is no absolute certainty that elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere are caused by Man. There is no doubt that levels are rising faster than at any time geologists can discover (except for right after huge volcanic eruptions). If the levels get too high, this will be a worse place for people to live.

A sensible post.
Even IF the current trend of global temperature increase is part of a natural cycle, isn't it still a good idea to reduce our pollution emissions????
Just because some think it is a liberal plot is no good reason to continue the unsustainable increases WE are contributing to the CO2 loading of our atmosphere.
I'd rather see further development into alternate energy sources, if nothing else to give us a choice in what we use to power our vehicles, heat and cool our homes, light etc. etc. than to just remain dependant on fossil fuels that are stinky, polluting and expensive!
The main pollutants in our marshes and ponds here are heavy end diesel contaminants, petroleum byproducts and heavy metals. We caused that, so its up to us to remedy it.

 

[ozflea]

The cure to all this is that we could all stay home and in bed and shut off everything including industry and travel for two days a week that would give the earth back it's weekend off and monitor the temp difference and that includes a two day holiday even during a war.

Mc Bob.

 

[Ianab]

Also remember, greenhouse gases and air pollution are often 2 very seperate issues.

A wood burner may be carbon neutral as far as greenhouse emmisions go, but still create a local air pollution problem. Conversely a natural gas or LPG heater may burn 'clean', but release more fossil CO2. Likewise the boffins tell us that a big chunk of NZs greenhouse emmisons are cow burps (methane). But a field of contented burping cows is seldom looked on as a huge pollution problem.

Personally I cant see how digging up millions of tons of carbon and burning it relatively quickly CANT have some effect on the atmosphere. After all a big volcanic eruption can create a noticable effect around the world. It's just that it's never been done before, so it's a bit of an experiment as to what the effect will be. Depending on who you ask, it may be doom and gloom for everyone, or it may not make much difference. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Anyhow, I dont think that burning firewood is going to have ANY longterm effect on the planet, as long as you keep growing more trees to replace the ones you burn.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Canyon Angler]

I admire your intentions but you should probably just get over it.

Even if the US stopped burning ALL carbon TODAY, China is expected to double its consumption of oil and coal within 20 years.

Bottom line: Even if Al Gore were the Supreme Chancellor Diktator Fieldmarshal, global warming would continue, no thanks to all his hot air and lisping prissiness. (Little Lord Fauntleroy.)

Best bet: Invest in real estate that's about 50' above sea level...maybe you can resell it as "waterfront" in your lifetime! opcorn:

 

[precaud]

The clue with burning wood, is to have much oxygen feed. dont try to nearly smother the fire then you go to bed. I know there is many in the area here there we live who are doing it. Oh, it's awful in our bedroom we go to bed, the room likely full of a bad smell of smoke. :yoyo: :bang:

What stove are you using? Modern stoves are designed to burn the smoke almost completely. I almost never see any smoke coming out of my chimney, and even then it's a tiny wisp.

 

[Canyon Angler]

That's why burning 1 million BTUs of wood, is carbon-neutral; the tree sucked CO2 out of the air and you're putting it back.

That's freakin RIGHTEOUS!

Jim, I like the way you think!

 

[stonykill]

I think working with the forest service and listening to them is responsible. I am curious about your "strident environmentalist" statement. Does this mean you cut your firewood with a handsaw? That must be a great deal of work.

you read my mind. The wood must also be hauled out by horse or hand, no motorized vehicle I would imagine. To me...even if the wood polutes more, I'm not lining Hugo Chavez's pockets with money, or giving it to terrorists. The gas I burn in my saws is a far cry from what I would burn in oil to heat my home and workshop.:deadhorse:

 

[andrethegiant70]

My stove is, admittedly, a huge old Fisher... given the quality of the old girl, I'm not keen to replace it. However, reading some of what I have here, I might choose to let it get a little colder at night to avoid creating more smoke. I agree that whatever smoke is produced is a local air quality problem, not a greenhouse issue.

As far as whether there is a "global warming" issue, you'll never get THE definitive proof. You WILL be hard pressed to find a reputable study (and there are many) that doubts the phenomenon. There is now a huge wall of evidence. As regards Al Gore, he is admittedly easy to dislike and easy to criticize... in fact, he might be a big paunchy, glory-seeking gadfly with a Jesus complex, but he is also RIGHT. It is a grave mistake to disregard the message because you don't like the messenger.

 

[andrethegiant70]

Oh, does anyone else think it is insane that legislators waste their time regulating chainsaw emssions? I don't mean to say that they aren't stinky and don't pollute, but wouldn't the effort and resources spent doing so be MUCH better spent on somthing that accounted for more of the total? I burn more gas in my car going to work ONE DAY than I burn in a season of chainsaw use. What a waste of effort!

 

[tek9tim]

Not being from around where you are at, I'll ask you if the program might, or might not, help create better fire breaks.

The rules vary from forest to forest, but on the more liberal forests, you can fell any (non-cedar) snag that the top hasn't fallen out of, has no wildlife holes, and is in the open area, shown on maps distributed with firewood permits. The selectivity I mentioned earlier comes from the nature of wood-getters. Around here, only doug and lodgepole are cut for firewood, leaving the grand fir (that die en mass) and ponderosa. Now, even if every single dead tree along a road was cut out, it would not help much to make a firebreak. You know, I'm not sure what people envision when they think of a firebreak, but I'm thinking it's something like a road that a fire will run right up to and stop. Then the end credits roll, and everyone walks out of the theater. Fires cover the most ground by spotting, and they will spot a good 1/2 mile pretty easily in the right fuel type. So, to cross a 25 foot road isn't much. Given, a road is a pretty good place to burn out off of, but most roads need to be brushed out in addition to felling snags before you can put fire down safely, anyhow.

 

[mktest]

Burning wood is fine from a CO2-point of view, but a key issue is to replace the cut down trees with...new trees. And not just, say, land-eroded semi-desert or a fossil-based cattle farm feeding cattle with soy from cut down rainforest or whatever.

 

[Canyon Angler]

but he is also RIGHT. It is a grave mistake to disregard the message because you don't like the messenger.

OK, assume for the sake of argument (and ignore the fact that 30 years ago, the same people now squawking about global warming were worried about global COOLING) that Al Gore is right.

Next question: What the heck are ya gonna do about it when China's consumption of coal and oil doubles in 20 years?

Even if the US stopped burning all carbon now, it would likely have very little effect.

Are you proposing that we simply tear down all our factories, cease all manufacturing, and voluntarily devolve into a 3rd-world country to stop a phenomenon that's very likely unstoppable?

opcorn:

 

[Jim Mesthene]

Are you proposing that we simply tear down all our factories, cease all manufacturing, and voluntarily devolve into a 3rd-world country to stop a phenomenon that's very likely unstoppable?

I don't know of anybody in the entire world who advocates that (although there are many who suggest that recognizing the problem means national suicide).
There are myriad possibilities between doing what you describe and doing nothing at all.

 

[andrethegiant70]

I beleive you are right, CA, we haven't see a tenth of what we're going to see out of China, and I wouldn't presume to know how to manage them. They, however, have been much more savvy in accepting global warming. They actually have emssions standards in effect right now which we are not self-obliged to meet for 11 years. It seems disgraceful to me. I think we need to do what we've always historically been good at.. technology! We've been sitting on our laurels for about 20 years now making big fat SUVs primarily for people who seem to think they need to ride up high in a really big vehicle and who would never dream of putting that vehicle to its appropriate use. Anybody know someone with a Lincoln Navigator who goes offroading? Of course, I generalize terribly. Lots of folks buy large capable vehicles and use them well, but lots (most) don't. I think we're serious about going head to head with China, we're going to have to be a LOT more thoughtful than that!

It does seem to me that we could make way better choices everyday. If we're going to the store to pick up groceries....combine it with other trips.. drive the small car, park it and walk if the store is close.. and the like. Let the SUV sit until you need it to move a bunch of people or things.

Well, I'll get off my soap box now, maybe other communities are more progressive than mine.. I just see so many people doing thoughtless things with huge vehicles.. I don't even know how they can afford it.. I know I can't! I didn't mean to raise such a stink.... I think I may have gotten off topic.

 

[turnkey4099]

And the war rages on but I see progress. Instead of only being two camps "Is not" and "is" there is now a middle ground and more and more participants are in the middle ground.

I do have a problem with the "China puts out more so why should we do anything? people". That is equivalent to 'my neighbor down the road throws his trash in the woods, so I might as well too".

I can see this debate still going on when (if) lower Manhattan is under 50 ft of water. There will still be the GW deniers.

Harry K

 

[Canyon Angler]

big fat SUVs primarily for people who seem to think they need to ride up high in a really big vehicle and who would never dream of putting that vehicle to its appropriate use

Yep, and they probably vote Republican too. For shame. There ought to be a law.

I don't even know how they can afford it.. I know I can't!

No offense to you Andre, but I always wonder about folks who want to tell everybody else what kind of car to drive. Is it really concern for the planet? Or just jealousy? I hear San Francisco is trying to impose "life without parole" on anyone who dares to buy a Hummer. :jester:

 

[Canyon Angler]

There are myriad possibilities between doing what you describe and doing nothing at all.

Agreed. And they all would probably have the same net effect on the climate: Zero.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem. What I'm saying is that any response that has any chance of doing any good would involve such radical changes to our way of life that it wouldn't be accepted.

Every day the US burns about 20 million barrels of oil and 3 million tons of coal. I wonder how many of Al Gore's nuclear power plants it would take to replace that capacity...and how many would need to be struck by hijacked 767s before Americans would scrap that idea.

Come on fusion!

 

[Erick]

Ok well I was wrong I guess I have more to say since we brought up the dreaded, earth killing SUV, I was waiting to see how long it would take. The average full size SUV (oh no I said it alarm word) gets maybe 1 mile per gallon less than its full-size pick-up truck counterpart, but no one is slicing tires, or trashing paint jobs on F-150's. Could this be because the "media" has not propagandized the almost double the number of full size trucks which get roughly the same fuel mileage and are only capable of carrying 2 possibly 3 people. When people see folks in an SUV (oh no I said it again) driving down the road buy themselves they look at them with disgust now thanks to the media propaganda. Never mind the fact that this person is on their way to pick up their and their two neighbors kids from school and the only reason you saw them at the store by themselves is because they were getting grocery's on their way (uh oh somebody was combining trips to save on fuel). Most of the folks who buy SUV's (their I go again I'm gonna get kicked off here for all this cussing) have a real need for them. Maybe it's to haul the boat to the lake on the weekend or maybe it's to haul the kids back and forth to school, but since they can only afford to own one vehicle they need a vehicle that is capable of doing these things and yet they still need to get back and forth to work each day and that’s why you see them by themselves in "that earth destroying" SUV. Maybe its just the fact that they want their children to be safe incase of an accident. How well do you think a child would fair in a 30 MPH side impact crash in a geo metro? I'm pretty sure the kids in that (oh no I'm gonna say it) Navigator are going home for dinner that evening safe and sound. As you may have guessed by now I own an SUV and before you start looking down at me from way up there you should know that I also own a small car that I drive the 37 miles each way back and forth to work each day. I have also driven my Expedition 12 hours to Georgia with 7 people in it and no one complained about the ride or being cramped. This same trip would have taken 2 small cars using the same number of cylinders and the same amount of fuel (assuming the cars get at least 32 miles per gallon) except the two cars would have used twice as much oil and natural resources like steel and rubber for tires and hoses, would not have been as comfortable and would pollute the earth twice as much at the end of their useful life. So which vehicle is worse for the environment?? I can't haul myself and 3 friends two dog kennels and all the guns and gear for a days bird hunt in a Corolla, yet we all fit very comfortably in my SUV. I can haul myself, friends, and pull a 16 foot trailer loaded with 4-weelers comfortably and keep all the riding gear and lunch coolers safe and locked up dry in the back of my SUV. My Expedition pulls my boat with ease and all of the people and gear for a fun weekend at the lake, try that with an escort. SUV's are purpose built vehicles and are excellent for their purpose. Now just because the "media" says their bad we are supposed to live with driving a tuna can on wheels and sacrifice the safety of our children and the activities we love for what amounts to less than 4 barrels of oil a year for most people. No thanks I'll stick with my earth destroyer. The answer to our current problem (in regards to fuel anyway) is in alternative fuel not the extinction of a useful vehicle. As with trees corn also absorbs CO2 and we have the capability to turn that corn into fuel and have the same net zero CO2 effect as burning firewood for heat. These alternative fuels are already being used in some areas with excellent results but when the American public was put to a survey and asked if they would consider using alternative fuels for the same net cost the majority said no because they would need to stop more often for fuel and it would inconvenience them. I agree that we need a change in thinking in this country but more about the fuels we use and not the vehicles we drive. Sorry Andre didn't mean to hijack your thread and I'm not slamming you personally for throwing the SUV into the mix. I understand what you were saying and your right some people buy SUV's as a status symbol and have no real use for them beyond trying to impress their friends. You just hit a sore spot for me as I am a soon to be out of work autoworker who builds SUV's. I'll get back off the soapbox now.

I'll leave you with one final thought. All of the CO2 on this earth has always been here stored and released in one form another since the beginning of time. It is a natural process and there is nothing we can do to alter, affect, or stop it, it is what it is a natural trend of the earth.

OK I'm done

 

[Jim Mesthene]

I'll leave you with one final thought. All of the CO2 on this earth has always been here stored and released in one form another since the beginning of time. It is a natural process and there is nothing we can do to alter, affect, or stop it, it is what it is a natural trend of the earth.

Yes....And it rained hydrochloric acid for a few hundred thousand years; that was completely natural too.

 

[t_andersen]

Here's my 0.02 $ to this avalanche post:

-Heating with wood is CO2 neutral

-In most cases, heating with wood polutes heavily due to the soot particles and other products that are emitted. It is important that combustion takes place at high temperatures to avoid pollution and that is often not the case

-I really love you guys in the US for a variety of reasons but I have to disagree with some of you when it comes to CO2 emission from the US and China. 5 % of the world population lives in the US and emits 21 % of the CO2 world-wide. 21 % of the world population lives in China and they expell only 14 % of the CO2.