Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
Both occur over a relatively short timescale. But I think the release of carbon dioxide from old growth forest, bogs, etc. that permanently.desyroys.that environment is a different issue. Trees as crops, not.
I'm not particularly in favour of wood burners.or other forms of direct biomass combustion for heating but as RC would say it is an odd hill for the Greens to die on. There is so much else they should be doing. I also think banning new installations of X is better than telling people they need to replace X by a certain date, if you actually want X to be replaced - which at least this latest announcement is.
They are going to get voted out in 2026, which given all of the distractions about gender identity, high taxation and independence that they've become embroiled in, is a case in point.
0 -
-
This is just an idiotic post. If you can't comprehend the issues just put your phone down.
0 -
Allister Heath bingo card doing well in this one. It does intrigue me whether he actually believes the tosh he writes.
0 -
It’s enough to convince the likes of the Trussbot. If I was sat in a restaurant or cafe near her as was RC, I would be tempted to slip a note to her saying ‘beware this place has been infiltrated by The Woke, any problems call Charlie’.
0 -
I'd agree that rural wood burners are not the biggest problem, but there are still better ways to heat a home. In urban and suburban areas they are just a bad idea. I know everyone loves a roaring fire, but burning stuff to keep warm is something we don't need to do anymore.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I mean, as harmful pollution to people goes, wood burning is up there as some of the worst.
and the idea it’s “carbon neutral” in a practical sense, rather than theoretical is laughable. After all, why would we be bothered about deforestation and its impact on climate change if that was practically the case?
Beyond the biodiversity cost, wood produces more co2 emissions for a given amount of energy production compared to oil.
So it’s energy inefficient, it emits vast amounts of dangerous particulates, the time taken to replace said emissions for a tree is a long long time if they’re mature enough to be good wood burning.
But hey, at least technically the co2 will eventually be recycled, as long as there are some trees left?!
0 -
This is gibberish.
0 -
Deforestation for UK wood burners isnt the issue. But for baked goods in the US imported from Brazil, more of an issue. Similarly crops for so called sustainable fuels.
Biodiversity in any farmed land is low. I don't know if it is actually higher for forestry, given regulations that now require an open fringe of woodland around a crop for that purpose.
If the CO2 being released was atmospheric a short period before, the efficiency at the point of combustion is completely irrelevant.
Fyi most of your argumentation also applies to eating anything, because you generate essentially the same waste products when you breathe.
Hope that helps.
0 -
You're still looking at highly inefficient energy production with extremely high amounts of harmful emissions.
1 -
Well quite, but even gas central heating is the same principle. And emits more CO2.
In a lot of Scotland, people are stuck on oil. Biomass isn't uncommon. It is relatively rare for a wood burner to be the main heating source.
(That said, my next door neighbour still used coal, and that was for hot water as well. We didn't go round much.)
It is true to say that telling people you are banning new wood burners to reduce CO2 emissions is hogwash.
0 -
Level 3
I've got some results graphs available for £76.50+VAT.
1 -
Well at least you've finally understood.
It would be lovely if we started re-wilding in the UK, but most of the tree planting announced by the SNP and Greens is commercial. Lots of nice straight lines.
You could argue that the Greens are hypocrites.
0 -
I agree. It sounds like you're grasping the idea of being vegan.😉
0 -
Well if you follow one of the arguments that I've disabused today, digesting plants and exhaling their CO2 is carbon positive.
0 -
Vegans also tend to be a bit farty. Atmospheric methane is a terrible, terrible thing.
Really, we should all just be constipated to sequester these by products and save the planet. I am doing my part already.
0 -
Hey, I've got to eat something-part of being alive. Surely eating plants is carbon neutral if the plants regrow, crops in other words. Tractor deisel/transport would contribute to Co2, though.
Nearly 50% land use is grass for livestock. A large part of that could be rewilded.
0 -
I mean, you're taking trees that would otherwise be lowering the carbon footprint, and it takes a while for a tree to grow sufficiently to replace that. So there is a lag there. A costly lag.
0 -
Forgot, that some of the arable land is used for livestock feed too.
0 -
People keep eating though, so new crops are planted which absorb CO2 with a very short cycle. Trees are not necessarily replaced. As I said above, apparently, Drax sources from sustainable forests.
Also, wind farms spend their first year repaying their carbon debt and then the next 29 producing clean energy.
0 -
Nah, it barely makes any difference I'm afraid. Compared to the sequestered CO2 in the arctic and Antarctic, and dissolved CO2 that is being released as the oceans warm, as a way to influence atmospheric CO2 levels it's at best a transient blip. There was a lot of talk about this when BoJo announced he was going to plant a billion trees a minute or something like that.
It isn't the main reason why we should be planting and rewilding in the UK, anyway.
0 -
Just stop farting. That's all I ask.
0 -
Yes, and rewilding would be good for biodiversity. But as above, it's not a significant measure in itself to sequester CO2.
I could be wrong, of course.
0 -
Once your microbiome changes, things in that department settle down.
0 -
The Welsh Government are currently upsetting farmers (and we all know it takes a lot to upset farmers) by requiring them to set aside 10% of their land for woodland in exchange for grants. I think the farmers want the grants but to not have to do anything / continue with their normal farming procedures as they did with the EU grants many of them voted to no longer receive.
0 -
With ongoing ash dieback disease, I'd estimate that more than 10% of tree cover on farmland has disappeared recently.
0 -
They can't be reasoned with. Where we came from there was no shelter for animals whatsoever, high winds and snow in winter. I guarantee the additional costs from deaths due to exposure, bales to provide shelter and fuel to move those around etc. actually cost more than the supposed lost grazing area to a pleasing smattering of trees, hedges etc.
0 -
Yeah, I think it is a really good policy by Welsh Government and that they stick to their guns. If the farmers want public money then they need to do this that benefit the wider public in return and despite what they say large parts of Welsh farmland aren't being used to grow food. It might also help with flooding as the sheet runoff from a lot of farm fields around here is terrible which I think is because they've ripped out the drainage ditches they used to have around their boundaries.
0 -
People will object to anything. We have flooding problems along the Tamar and water quality issues. People STILL somehow object to turning barely grazed soggy fields into wetlands.
Happily, not locally, where it has already happened in a couple of places intentionally and elsewhere by accident.
0
