I personally agree that we have too many people and agree that we should not have subsidies that exist to encourage procreation.

Full disclosure: My wife and I don't have kids and don't want them.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Please explain how the burning of wood is carbon neutral.
I don't know if it is neutral, but compare to oil or gas It has to be waaaay less. First of all the tree if came from sucked out a lot of the bad stuff in its lifespan. And that tree once dead was going to put a certain amount back into the atmosphere anyway, so burning it just speed up the process. Not sure if burning makes more or less than decaying, but in the aggregate, has to be a lot less than oil or gas from million year old dinosaur bodies.. (-;

Sweet, so does that mean that we should just cut down the Amazon and burn that to generate electricity?

This is the problem I have with many of these types of arguments. They sound half rational until you take them to the Nth degree

So the problem is the argument, or you taking it the Nth degree?

Either burning wood is carbon neutral, so we can use that to fuel power stations, or its not.
Which is it?

Now, if you contend that the wood YOU burn is carbon neutral because you plant trees to offset what you burnt, thats totally different than saying burning wood is carbon neutral, and I would agree with that 100%

As I said previously, I have a real problem with people preaching that aren't prepared to put their money where there mouth is.

You could argue that burning wood within some kind of forest growth cycle is largely carbon neutral, and to some degree ecologically neutral. In such a case there would be large differences between that approach and cutting down the whole brazilian rain forest. There would also be huge differences between that approach and releasing oil based carbon that has resided in the Earth's rock for millions of years.

As I said previously, I have a real problem with people preaching that aren't prepared to put their money where there mouth is. //

And I have a real problem with people that just make shit up to bolster an argument that they don't really have any real information about? My only claim(actually logical observation) was that burning an old tree was probably better than oil or gas. I do burn trees for my heat, old dead ones that lived out their lives already. And I have planted around a dozen or so in my yard that should grow for the next 100+ years and get quite big, and be someone else firewood someday. I also spent about 5 years just burning the remnants of a house build I did, so probably from a renewable forest cycle.


But beyond that, you just arguing some stupid point to be argumentative, or do you really think burning fossil fuel is more carbon neutral than wood?

Either burning wood is carbon neutral, so we can use that to fuel power stations, or its not.
Which is it?

First of all, that statement makes no sense. Many things are carbon neutral, doesn't mean we can use them to fuel power stations.

Second, we do use wood to fuel power stations all over the world. It took about 5 seconds to google "biomass power plants" and find this:
https://www.eversource.com/...cade-of-clean-energy

And there's plenty of other examples.

On just a quick search it looks like the burning of the wood itself is carbon neutral, BUT deforestation that can occur from it would not be.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Stop being a dick Monty. Im not making anything up and Ive got no problem with what you said (or do)
I didn't say that burning fossil fuels was better than burning wood. If you are planting trees to offset what you've burnt, then I have no problem with that.
I was simply arguing the point that if burning wood was in and of itself carbon neutral, then why aren't we using that as a fuel source for power plants?

The answer is that because it isn't as carbon neutral as some here have made out *cough eb cough*
It CAN be carbon neutral on a small scale, and thats fine. I have no problem with that (apart from the possible air pollution problems, but thats a thread for someone like Duffy that actually does something about air pollution).

And yes I like to yank eb's chain because it is so easy to do :-)

But I will continue to maintain that those that don't do their bit do minimize CC have no place in preaching do those that do, even if I don't buy into the fanaticism that some have.
Id happily wager that I have done more and continue to do more than most in this thread.

Oh, you do say some precious things.


Burning wood that I cut on my own property or in the neighborhood *is* small scale.And I am glad to hear that you think my small-scale wood burning is fine. Knowing I now have your approval is really giving me a warm glowing feeling.


I wish I could say I enjoyed watching you make an ass of yourself, but you're really rather pathetic.

I can tell you love me. Its ok.

Now, if you contend that the wood YOU burn is carbon neutral because you plant trees to offset what you burnt, thats totally different than saying burning wood is carbon neutral, and I would agree with that 100%

By definition "Carbon neutral" means that you don't produce more GHG's than that which you offset by recapturing it. Has nothing to do with who is producing the GHG's or who is capturing it. Fossil fuels would be "Carbon Neutral" if we only use 1/50 millionth or so of what we are currently using.

~Matt

Fossil fuels would also be carbon neutral if we used rocket ships to move any net carbon gain into outer space. (We could include the net carbon gain of the rocket ship's voyages in our calculations to figure out how much CO2 must go up.)

Fossil fuels would also be carbon neutral if we used rocket ships to move any net carbon gain into outer space.

Not sure that is the definition of "Carbon Neutral" as it is generally used although I would agree the effect would be the same, well nearly the same. Generally you have to sequester and equal amount of carbon...I'm not sure jettisoning it into space is sequestering it.

~Matt

You probably burned that much just by typing this post.