Trees
The other day I was debating the significance of trees in the carbon cycle. Probably in liberal, but wherever it was, I deleted the comment notification and now I can't find it.
Anyway, somebody said that old-growth forests have zero net carbon footprint. That's true if you ignore the possibility of large volumes of organic materials becoming buried, which is fair. But even though old-growth forests emit nearly as much carbon through decay as they consume through respiration, they still represent an enormous reservoir of organic carbon. If we kill them, either by clear-cutting or through the effects of climate change, that carbon goes into our atmosphere. And if we kill them quickly enough, the richer atmosphere may not be enough to stimulate the rest of the world's flora to pick up the slack.
I wonder if the total mass of carbon in all the world's trees would be enough to raise atmospheric CO2 levels to toxicity...
Anyway, somebody said that old-growth forests have zero net carbon footprint. That's true if you ignore the possibility of large volumes of organic materials becoming buried, which is fair. But even though old-growth forests emit nearly as much carbon through decay as they consume through respiration, they still represent an enormous reservoir of organic carbon. If we kill them, either by clear-cutting or through the effects of climate change, that carbon goes into our atmosphere. And if we kill them quickly enough, the richer atmosphere may not be enough to stimulate the rest of the world's flora to pick up the slack.
I wonder if the total mass of carbon in all the world's trees would be enough to raise atmospheric CO2 levels to toxicity...