The deforestation points being raised have me asking a couple of questions.
1. If we were to consider the natural existence of trees in BC to be a norm, what is the net value of their deforestation on the overall carbon situation? In other words, if they are cutting down trees that would have been absorbing carbon, are they harming the environment in any way measurable? If we're not allowed to harvest our natural resource to the detriment of the global environment, are they?
2. Alberta also has a lot of trees. What is our carbon +/-? I'm not talking about the export of oil. Oil will be burned whether we pipe it to the coast and ship it to China or not. I'm wondering if the amount of CO2 emissions from cars and furnaces and farting in Alberta are more or less than what our forests absorb. Frankly, I have no idea. It could be drastically in either direction, and I wouldn't be surprised.
I hate this situation. I don't want to argue on an "us vs. them" basis, but Alberta needs to point out hypocrisy. BC cuts down trees. Trees that have helped balance the environment for thousands of years. Why do they do that? Because they know that lumber is essential to construction. And if they don't sell their lumber, everyone will just buy it from someone who will. Hmm. Sounds familiar.
|