Here's a great blog asking the question I've been asking myself recently about these "biomass fuels" (fancy name for things that first you grow, before you burn them).
The basic jist is that its not as simple as 'carbon in = carbon out' equals carbon neutrality. Its about the rate of carbon release (through burning) versus the rate of carbon absorption (throughout the life of the tree). If a tree takes 50 - 100 years to grow and 1 week to burn on a fire, then just because you plant a tree for everyone you chop down - doesn't mean you're saving the planet today.
If you look at the rate of carbon release throughout the world today, versus the rate of carbon absorption by the biosphere (forests etc) in the world today...
Should we be planting more trees? Defintely.
Should we be chopping down any trees? Probably not.
Should we be looking at passive energy systems as a workable alternative (wind, wave, solar, mini-hydro) I think so...
2 comments:
i abhor carbon neutrality. i abhor how it can be bought, on a credit card & thus accumulates fly buys. i think it's for jetsetters and 4wd owners to offset their guilt!!!
ok, that's it from me. we should catch up when you're next in town!!
b
Its like an obese person, too fat to have a see-saw with their kid. They go and find an equally obese counterweight and think they're cracked the problem. They need to lose weight, not offset it.
Post a Comment