You can plant trees as much as you like, as long as we continue to bring up carbon from underground it is useless - apart from a temporary (small) dip. This whole thing is ridiculous: Even if we decided to bury grown trees deep underground to remove their carbon from the surface forever - why not save the huge effort (and the energy that process needs which again has to be fed somehow - with even more fossil fuels for quite some time to come) and simply leave the ancient forests where they are (deep underground)?
As long as we keep bringing carbon from very ancient forests back out of the earth, it does not matter how many forests there are. The whole forest stores a fixed amount and that's it. Look at total biomass, not at tree life cycles! The equations at that point of a mature forest are balanced. Unless you find trees that keep growing for miles and miles higher for thousands of years. Some trees grow old and die or are harvested (what happens?), others grow in their place, overall the forest remains at a pretty stable and fixed weight. When you look at the whole system individual tree life cycle doesn't matter any more.
That also includes the issue of looking at just one tree instead of a forest. Īlso in all those discussions of processes(!) I find people even here seem to be looking at points in time only, and usually at the start of the process. The carbon stored in a tree is proportional to its weight, about half its dry weight is carbon. Is this why the industry is not already growing the tree? They need particular growing conditions, and don’t like wet feet or strong winds. They require pruning twice a year to establish a clear timber trunk. > Paulownia trees take a lot of work to manage. But in neither scenario would you be able to count all 103 tons per acre per year.Ī confounding factor, can it really compete on a mass scale with existing lumber? Say you use more wood to replace concrete in buildings. It also possible that Empress is so efficient that the market for wood expands more than it would otherwise. And if that land which you wind up not needing to grow plantation trees on instead becomes undisturbed forest, then you could count that portion as a net reduction in carbon emissions. Since the Empress is so efficient you could use less land to grow those 10M board feet worth of trees. So, if you grew Empress trees that yielded 10M board feet, there would be less of some other tree grown. The Empress wood is really just substituting for other wood that grows more slowly and less efficiently. (Its effectiveness explains why some folks were eager to see it defanged.) But the point of the legislation and its implementation (which Warren and others worked very carefully on) was creating a semi-autonomous institution solely focused on consumer financial protection.ĭuring the Obama years the CFPB was pretty effective, despite unified and extreme opposition from GOP politicians. but there are many other federal agencies which might also be considered “law enforcement” under a broader interpretation of that term.ĭifferent agencies have different focus, different mandate, different institutional powers, etc.Īrguably the functions established for the CFPB to perform could be undertaken by some other institution. Many of the ones commonly considered to be “law enforcement agencies” per se are listed at. There are many different organizations within the US federal government (not to mention state governments) which deal in one way or another with regulation and enforcement. I just can't picture it happening (at least for the redress method I listed above). I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm saying we should give up/not try. It would require multiple layers of alternative realities for that to ever happen, in my (admittedly cynical) opinion. What does that have to do with carbon control ? ICE auto industry, coal industry, oil and gas, etc, would all be "harmed" if US lawmakers passed anything that had a material impact on CO2 emissions. I dare say that no congress shall ever pass a law that harms a corporation (a de facto constitutional amendment). I think obamacare came close (which became one of the most hardfought wins ever), and yet the health insurance lobby still came out ahead. Honest question: can you point me to any US politician that has stood up to a corporation or corporate interest with laws that effectively say, "No, you can't have what you want, the people need instead." and - most importantly - got those laws passed? I can't think of one. elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere.
0 kommentar(er)
