Yes we do need forests to absorb CO2. I don't believe we should cut down our forests for Biofuel. I never said that.
Biomass energy production - at least in Canada- is being considered as picking up the residuals from the lumber industry. Meaning that it will be finding value in useless lumber (even for ecosystem services).
An objective of forest conservation is finding value in the forest so it does not get cut down for other uses (city sprawl, Agriculture). Biomass is one of those ways
I have done extensive research on this subject and biomass can be done ecologically and it is NOT worse then coal. It needs to remain as a secondary production in the lumbar industry. This means taking the unusable parts of trees that the lumbar industry can not use. I wouldn't be so quick to turn to wind and solar. There are land change use problems that those two energies bring. What would you rather have. I field full of solar panels or a forest where trees are being cut down via FSC cert.
@dougomania What is the "lumbar" industry? Do you mean LUMBER?
No, nothing is worse than coal. But the point is, we need forests to provide ecosystems and absorb CO2. Their roles should not be reversed to provide something to burn and producing pollution. A horrible idea.
@dougomania wrote: I wouldn't be so quick to turn to wind and solar. There are land change use problems that those two energies bring. What would you rather have. I field full of solar panels or a forest where trees are being cut down..."
I would rather have a field full of solar panels, or solar panels on tops of buildings and houses, than forests cut down. Easy question and rather dumb.
I have done extensive research on this subject and biomass can be done ecologically and it is NOT worse then coal. It needs to remain as a secondary production in the lumbar industry. This means taking the unusable parts of trees that the lumbar industry can not use. I wouldn't be so quick to turn to wind and solar. There are land change use problems that those two energies bring. What would you rather have. I field full of solar panals or a forest where trees are being cut down via FSC cert.
Please check out EnergyJustice [dot] net/biomass for more information on the threats to public health, climate and forests from biomass power incineration.
Yes we do need forests to absorb CO2. I don't believe we should cut down our forests for Biofuel. I never said that.
Biomass energy production - at least in Canada- is being considered as picking up the residuals from the lumber industry. Meaning that it will be finding value in useless lumber (even for ecosystem services).
An objective of forest conservation is finding value in the forest so it does not get cut down for other uses (city sprawl, Agriculture). Biomass is one of those ways
dougomania 9 months ago
It's not just energy companies that want to burn our forests, it's OBAMA!
He mentions biomass in every energy speech he gives. Horrible idea!
shellius 9 months ago
I have done extensive research on this subject and biomass can be done ecologically and it is NOT worse then coal. It needs to remain as a secondary production in the lumbar industry. This means taking the unusable parts of trees that the lumbar industry can not use. I wouldn't be so quick to turn to wind and solar. There are land change use problems that those two energies bring. What would you rather have. I field full of solar panels or a forest where trees are being cut down via FSC cert.
dougomania 11 months ago
@dougomania What is the "lumbar" industry? Do you mean LUMBER?
No, nothing is worse than coal. But the point is, we need forests to provide ecosystems and absorb CO2. Their roles should not be reversed to provide something to burn and producing pollution. A horrible idea.
shellius 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dougomania wrote: I wouldn't be so quick to turn to wind and solar. There are land change use problems that those two energies bring. What would you rather have. I field full of solar panels or a forest where trees are being cut down..."
I would rather have a field full of solar panels, or solar panels on tops of buildings and houses, than forests cut down. Easy question and rather dumb.
shellius 9 months ago
I have done extensive research on this subject and biomass can be done ecologically and it is NOT worse then coal. It needs to remain as a secondary production in the lumbar industry. This means taking the unusable parts of trees that the lumbar industry can not use. I wouldn't be so quick to turn to wind and solar. There are land change use problems that those two energies bring. What would you rather have. I field full of solar panals or a forest where trees are being cut down via FSC cert.
dougomania 11 months ago
Renember when there was no ads that never go away?
Renember the famous yellow subcribe button?
Renember when you could rate 5 stars?
Renember when YouTube was a better place?
WE MISS THE OLD YOU TUBE! POST ON EVERY VIDEO AND START A YOU-
TUBE RIOT! THUMBS UP FOR KEEPING IT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE!
MrEliwhite2002 11 months ago 4
Please check out EnergyJustice [dot] net/biomass for more information on the threats to public health, climate and forests from biomass power incineration.
thombanjo 11 months ago
i agree with you completely
MrDarthvader011 11 months ago
bahahahahaha.
jaylanmarissa 11 months ago
The greed and audacity of these international predatory corporations like Wall Street, oil, gas & coal companies is unbelievable.
But they own Washington and the GOP and are getting away with it.
goog2k 11 months ago