Environment 500+ Scientists Demand Stop to Tree Burning as Climate Solution

tom_mai78101

The Helper Connoisseur / Ex-MineCraft Host
Staff member
A group of more than 500 international scientists on Thursday urged world leaders to end policies that prop up the burning of trees for energy because it poses "a double climate problem" that threatens forests' biodiversity and efforts to stem the planet's ecological emergency.

The demand came in a letter addressed to European Commission President Urusla Von der Leyen, European Council President Charles Michel, U.S. President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in. The signatories—including renowned botanist Dr. Peter Raven, president emeritus of the Missouri Botanical Garden—reject the assertion that burning biomass is carbon neutral.

Referring to forest "preservation and restoration" as key in meeting the nations' declared goals of carbon neutrality by 2050, the letter frames the slashing of trees for bioenergy as "misguided."

"We urge you not to undermine both climate goals and the world's biodiversity by shifting from burning fossil fuels to burning trees to generate energy," the group wrote.

The destruction of forests, which are a carbon sink, creates a "carbon debt." And though regrowing "trees and displacement of fossil fuels may eventually pay off this carbon debt," the signatories say that "regrowth takes time the world does not have to solve climate change."

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ghan

Administrator - Servers are fun
Staff member
And though regrowing "trees and displacement of fossil fuels may eventually pay off this carbon debt," the signatories say that "regrowth takes time the world does not have to solve climate change."
That sounds like some alarmism. I'm certainly no climate expert, but doesn't the carbon in trees come directly from the carbon they absorb from the air? (As in, exactly the reason they refer to forests as a "carbon sink" in the first place?) I have trouble believing that the climate as a whole is in such danger that this carbon cycle is going to have a huge effect either way. The trees are going to burn one way or the other. As we've learned in California, if you don't do proper forest management, then nature will do it for you, with sometimes disastrous results.

The forests are important. Deforestation is a problem. But this alarmist take seems to just suggest that we need to stop the logging industry dead. This seems unnecessary.
 

jonas

Ultra Cool Member
That sounds like some alarmism. I'm certainly no climate expert, but doesn't the carbon in trees come directly from the carbon they absorb from the air? (As in, exactly the reason they refer to forests as a "carbon sink" in the first place?) I have trouble believing that the climate as a whole is in such danger that this carbon cycle is going to have a huge effect either way. The trees are going to burn one way or the other. As we've learned in California, if you don't do proper forest management, then nature will do it for you, with sometimes disastrous results.

The forests are important. Deforestation is a problem. But this alarmist take seems to just suggest that we need to stop the logging industry dead. This seems unnecessary.
The climate is in a large danger, but not from doing proper forest management. The CO2 released from trees is a small percentage of the CO2 we are expelling by other means, and an even smaller fraction of our effect on the climate once you consider CH4 as well.

Some sources suggest 1.5 bn tonnes of CO2 released by cutting forests, compared to 33bn tonnes emitted in total.

The biggest impact we can do right now is to reduce fossil fuels to a back up role for harsh weather conditions like TH has in Texas right now, and reduce animal product consumption.

A nice graph for how scarily quickly the climate is changing, look at https://xkcd.com/1732/ -- change of temperature has always happened, but never as fast as it is happening right now. We're not yet at a point where the effect is huge, but I'd rather see the change slow down a lot over the next decades.
 
Last edited:
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    Question: Is there a way to remove thread redirects? It creates a copy of the moved thread and takes up space, and I am leaning towards wanting to remove them in the Headline News. But if they have an expiration date, I guess I'm fine with it.
  • The Helper The Helper:
    If you move a thread please leave a permanent redirect. You can delete any redirects after 6 months. The redirects are left to help Search Engines find the moved content.
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    What if you move the permanent redirect, not the thread?
  • The Helper The Helper:
    I think that works but I have not messed with it. You can delete redirects though if you have to that will not delete the original thread
  • The Helper The Helper:
    if a redirect ends up in the same forum as the post it goes to though I think the redirect drops or fails or something but they are not bugged out and when you are working on an indirect the original post is safe.
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Early Friday :)
    +1
  • V-SNES V-SNES:
    Happy Friday :)
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    Fun Friday for me
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    Happy Fun Friday to all.
    +2
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Sunday everyone!!!
  • V-SNES V-SNES:
    Happy Sunday!!!
    +1
  • jonas jonas:
    Happy monday :p
  • jonas jonas:
    Everyone hates mondays?
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Tuesday!
  • jonas jonas:
    Happy belated tuesday
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    I found out you can't delete nor hide redirect links to existing threads. It will just stay there. I have no choice now but to start moving thread redirects to News Archive.
  • The Helper The Helper:
    That is not the way that it works for me I can delete redirects you just have to hit refresh sometimes big deletes will take a while as long as moves\
  • The Helper The Helper:
    You don't have to do that you can just leave stuff there in headline news for up to a year it was already down to like 8 months there is no rush.
  • The Helper The Helper:
    We need to do something about the Headline News forum now that Ghan got the News script to work on the forums. We need an Other category really now more than we need a headline news forum full of redirects
  • The Helper The Helper:
    wow i just noticed there are no redirects left in Headline news lol!
  • The Helper The Helper:
    so much for the redirects I think they are useless anyway because posts urls are set and the redirects were just extra if something is indexed by the search engine it still will be without the redirect since the original url does not change
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    I was wondering if it'd be best to consolidate all of the Headline News threads into 1 place, and then let the users click on navigation links that would show/hide threads based on their thread flairs? Splitting the Headline News up like this would mean the only way to see all of the news is to go to the Home page and check there.
  • jonas jonas:
    I usually just browse the homepage for news
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    Good to know.

    Members online

    Affiliates

    Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

    Network Sponsors

    Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
    Top