You ****ing idiot!


"uncarollo" wrote in message
...
Cap and trade, who would it help, how would it work?

Because of world wide industrialization, all manner of pollutants were
concentrated and released into the air and water of our planet. In the
beginning the concentrations were low enough, or people could simply
move away from them so that it did not affect our health and well
being. Always there was an initial resistance by the parties involved
to clean up their messes, but eventually public pressure was brought
to bear, and the pollutant was either restricted, required to be
recycled or cleaned up. The clean air and clean water acts have done
much to make our air breathable again and clean up former sewer pits
like Lake Erie, where the water is so clean that sport fishing and
swimming is again possible. Even the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland,
which was so polluted that it burned when I lived there, now flows
clean into Lake Erie and has a National Park along its shores.

Carbon dioxide is the latest pollutant to enter the world stage. Why
is it a pollutant? the concentration of CO2 affects the net energy
balance of the Earth. It's really quite simple, each day the earth is
irradiated with a certain amount of energy from the sun (approximately
120 watts per square meter average), which heats the atmosphere and
makes it pleasant to live over most of its surface for bipedals like
us humans. At night, this is radiated out into the cold of space via
infrared radiation, in a balanced cycle. The atmosphere allows this
heat to escape, keeping the average temperature over the entire Earth
quite nicely in balance.

When we add CO2 to the atmosphere, we block this night time radiation
more or less. The net result is a warming up of the average air
temperature across the globe (along with all the negative effects this
causes), until a new balance is obtained. There is no runaway heating
effect, simply a new equilibrium at a higher temperature. Scientists
feel that the net effect of this higher average temperature outweigh
the positives, since most industrialized nations will not benefit
(except perhaps Canada and Russia). The question is how to resolve
this and begin to rein in the higher carbon levels to a manageable
level. One of the ways is thru carbon credits. This may have some side
benefits to those who own carbon sinks, such as forest land.

In the latest National Geographic, there is an interesting article on
just how carbon credits helps the forest industry, and how it promotes
sustainable long term health of the wood products industry. Redwood
forests once covered huge swaths of California some 50 miles wide and
400 miles long along the Pacific coast. These giant trees were much
coveted by the building industry and fueled the housing boom in the
West, as well as the rest of the nation. Since the late 1800's
approximately 95% of the old growth Redwood trees have been harvested,
some as much as 2000 years old. Those that were replanted are mere
saplings compared with the original giants, trees that were 300+ ft
high and as big around as a 747 airliner. Those old trees had dense
hardwood, which was much coveted for its rot resistant properties.
Replanted 50 to 100 year old trees have much softer wood and are not
as desirable as the old growth giants.

The timber industry in California has had its boom and bust cycles, so
forest managers and researchers have been looking for ways that make
the industry sustainable as well as profitable. It turns out that
clearcutting replanted 50 year old trees is highly destructive to the
environment, resulting in erosion, stream silting, destruction of
salmon spawning grounds, etc, as well as yielding lower quality wood.
It pits loggers against environmentalists and is not as profitable as
it should be to the land owners. New management practices along with
forest research now makes it clear that a new way of forestry can
result in desirable outcomes for all parties concerned, and at the
same time clean the carbon out of the air. How is this done?

First, only 1/3 of the trees are removed in any one area, leaving
larger trees to grow and giving them more light to grow faster. The
best trees are left in a stand to accumulate denser heart wood, while
mopping up huge quantities of CO2 in the process. Giant Redwoods are
fantastic carbon sinks, and if left standing will earn carbon credits
for the owners for as long as they are growing. The owners of the
forest make short term profits by selling the trees that are culled
while banking the ever increasing value of the largest trees. As the
forest ages, these trees are worth more and more in carbon credits and
in the dense heartwood that they are laying down in each yearly
growing cycle. The forest becomes more valuable over time to the
owner, and he can sell it to the next and the next for generations to
come, always careful to cull only 1/3 of the growth at any given time.
In this way the forest becomes a sustainable entity which has numerous
benefits to the owner, to the surrounding communities, the loggers,
and the environmentalists. It continues to grow and regenerate itself
while continually increasing in value.

Who buys these credits? They can be redeemed by power generating
plants who want to use cheap coal, either here in the US or overseas.
These credits will be tradable like any commodity in the future. It is
a way for the forest owner to make a profit whether he cuts the trees
or not, plus it gives the housing industry another option for
sustainable wood products. It also turns out that older trees in other
areas of the country, like the US south east and north east, also
benefit from similar forest management, and that older pine trees also
develop better quality wood than younger trees. It is also a very
effective way to sequester CO2, which must be done one way or other
for our nation's long term survival.