View Single Post
Oct28-09, 09:14 PM
P: 75
=Chi Meson;2414899
you are right in center field, but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to chop down all the trees. Keep in mind that a mature tree used for lumber would take 100 years to grow. It could also take nearly that long to fully decompose if it lay by itself in the woods. If it were turned in lumber, how long would it remain a "house" ?
I am not looking for an excuse to chop down trees(i like trees), I am trying to understand how the whole process works so that I can either agree with AGCC or have a better idea of why I dont. So far I am leaning towards conservation over enviromentalism, I am wondering if it might be more productive and successful to manage the forests better instead of just making laws to "protect the forests" by keeping humans out.

I can't imagine that this would be a good thing. I think so, but please don't cut down the trees. I like them. I want them to stay, thank you. Why? I told you, I like them. Hemp is one of the most effective CO2 removers. That's hemp, the original cannabis, used for rope, not the modified stuff used for pot.
Like I said before I am not looking to clearcut all the forests to keep them from releasing their carbon just trying to understand the mechanisms of nature. I never realized hemp was that effective of a CO2 remover, i'm all for using hemp for ropes instead of nylon or plastic as I understand it hemp also makes durable clothing. Isnt hemp a short lived(not much time to absorb CO2) or can it grow for years and years?

right click the word for spelling suggestions that's not the case here is it? Sometimes false claims just get exhaustive, and if there is no basis for the claim, then it becomes another form of trolling and monkey wrenching. Not that I see that your questions are such. again, that's not the case here at PF, is it? I persojnally have the opinion that global temperature is rising. The melting polar regions and retreating glaciers on every continent are satisfying evidence of that. I also think that mankind is contributing to it. But as I have stated in the past, it's like spitting into a bucket. I personally don't believe that our contribution is principal "cause."
Hy-o Silver! Away!
It is most definitely not the case here at PF, if it was I sure wouldnt waste my time even asking I feel this site is one of the jewels of the internet. I wasnt trying to indict the forum with my remarks, I was speaking more to the national government and the media, I guess I should know by now I have to be very precise when making remarks or asking questions around here.
I am not arguing that the earth isnt warming I most definitely understand that it is, i'm just wondering how much were to blame if any and trying to see if some other remedy makes more sense to me than taxing CO2(not eliminating it just taxing it). There is so much I dont know I am just trying to reduce that number a little.