Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
The United States has more trees now than it has ever had in the history of this planet.
|
We don't know that. Yes, the United States has more trees than it did 100 years ago, and a big part of that is the protections put into place by establishing national forests and parks. We'll see how Trump policy of allowing industrial activity in the national forests and preserves. A lot of reversal can take effect because of this buffoon's policies.
Quote:
|
With proper forest management it is entirely possible to avoid out of control forest fires that burn down entire areas of young growth trees.
|
The old growth forest are more important in acting as a carbon sink. If you read Crowther's study it focuses on trees with a trunk thicker than 10cm in diameter. The old growth trees have greater capacity to capture carbon.
I am curious about this "forest management" concept you are talking about. What constitutes forest management? I thought the intent was to double the number of trees on the planet? Wouldn't that mean packing them in tighter? Forest management has usually meant thinning the forest to prevent the collection of fuel on the ground. Seems in congruent with the bigger idea?
Quote:
|
Also, at some point fires are needed because the existing tree life is not sequestering C02, and if those trees aren't being harvested? Well, time to burn and let new ones take their place.
|
What do you mean that the existing tree is not sequestering CO2? As long as the tree is growing it is capturing carbon. Also, you are aware that when a tree burns it releases its stored carbon back into the atmosphere? Burning a tree is not a carbon neutral event.