Energy and carbon.

[Neil]

Speaking of carbon, I stumbled on this today:

Slowing deforestation may be worth $billions - study

Sun 6 Apr 2008, 23:50 GMT

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO, April 7 (Reuters Life!) - A slowdown of deforestation from the Amazon to the Congo basin could generate billions of dollars every year for developing nations as part of a U.N. scheme to fight climate change, a study showed on Monday.

Burning of forests by farmers clearing land accounts for 20 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions. A 190-nation U.N. climate conference agreed in Bali, Indonesia, in December to work on ways to reward countries for slowing deforestation.

"Even with quite conservative assumptions, you can generate substantial amounts of money and emissions reductions," said Johannes Ebeling of EcoSecurities in Oxford, England, of a study with Mai Yasue at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

They said a 10 percent decline in the rate of tropical forest loss could generate annual carbon finance for developing nations of between 1.5 billion and 9.1 billion euros ($2.4 to $14.30 billion) assuming carbon prices of 5 to 30 euros a tonne.

Such curbs would represent about 300 million tonnes of avoided carbon dioxide emissions a year -- about the amount of heat-trapping gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, emitted by Turkey, or half the total of France.

The United Nations wants reduced emissions from deforestation to be part of a new long-term climate treaty beyond 2012 to help avert more droughts, heatwaves, outbreaks of disease and rising seas.

Ebeling told Reuters that any credits for avoided deforestation would have to be matched by tough restrictions elsewhere, for instance forcing coal-fired power plants or cement factories to pay for right to emit carbon dioxide.

[1894]

Double Standard in place

[Neil]

Double Standard in place

This thread was started prior to the recent degradation of a few other threads. I hoped it would remain scientifically oriented but 4 posts were deleted. The unfortunate thing is that the environment and politics are essentially indissociable. Threads that get political nearly always get ugly and often get REAL ugly.

Now, would you please be so kind as to take down that flag.

Incidentally, when Tim and took over the forum one of the things we discussed was whether to keep or remove the (source of trouble and ill-will) Fireside forum. It's teetering on the brink of disappearance right now.

[backwoodsman]

Neil,if you don't want anyone talking politics then why bring up subjects with politics intertwined in them?

[Neil]

Neil,if you don't want anyone talking politics then why bring up subjects with politics intertwined in them?

I said I started this thread PRIOR to several other threads going political and that it was my hope that it would be a scientifically oriented discussion. Looks like I was naive, eh?

Too bad, because scientific discussions related to environmental concerns are important to all of us.

[chairrock]

Speaking of carbon, I stumbled on this today:

quote

Slowing deforestation may be worth $billions - study

Sun 6 Apr 2008, 23:50 GMT

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO, April 7 (Reuters Life!) - A slowdown of deforestation from the Amazon to the Congo basin could generate billions of dollars every year for developing nations as part of a U.N. scheme to fight climate change, a study showed on Monday.

Burning of forests by farmers clearing land accounts for 20 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions. A 190-nation U.N. climate conference agreed in Bali, Indonesia, in December to work on ways to reward countries for slowing deforestation.

"Even with quite conservative assumptions, you can generate substantial amounts of money and emissions reductions," said Johannes Ebeling of EcoSecurities in Oxford, England, of a study with Mai Yasue at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

They said a 10 percent decline in the rate of tropical forest loss could generate annual carbon finance for developing nations of between 1.5 billion and 9.1 billion euros ($2.4 to $14.30 billion) assuming carbon prices of 5 to 30 euros a tonne.

Such curbs would represent about 300 million tonnes of avoided carbon dioxide emissions a year -- about the amount of heat-trapping gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, emitted by Turkey, or half the total of France.

The United Nations wants reduced emissions from deforestation to be part of a new long-term climate treaty beyond 2012 to help avert more droughts, heatwaves, outbreaks of disease and rising seas.

Ebeling told Reuters that any credits for avoided deforestation would have to be matched by tough restrictions elsewhere, for instance forcing coal-fired power plants or cement end quote

How do you tell those farmers that are barely surviving they can't increase the size of their farms? How do you tell those huge farm conglomerants they cant expand?
Sounds like the earth cant remain sustainable with the current and definitly not with the growing population.
Now tell everyone to stop reproducing? Like they do in that China place,Yeah right....

[1894]

This thread was started prior to the recent degradation of a few other threads. I hoped it would remain scientifically oriented but 4 posts were deleted. The unfortunate thing is that the environment and politics are essentially indissociable. Threads that get political nearly always get ugly and often get REAL ugly.

Now, would you please be so kind as to take down that flag.

Incidentally, when Tim and took over the forum one of the things we discussed was whether to keep or remove the (source of trouble and ill-will) Fireside forum. It's teetering on the brink of disappearance right now.

BS flag taken down , folded , and put away . Saved , however, for any time it may need to be raised again in the future

[backwoodsman]

I said I started this thread PRIOR to several other threads going political and that it was my hope that it would be a scientifically oriented discussion. Looks like I was naive, eh?

Too bad, because scientific discussions related to environmental concerns are important to all of us.

well,maybe you should find science/global warming forum to discuss these things on.

[1894]

I'll try to stick with the "scientific" part of the thread I'm no scientist , just enjoy the Adirondacks . So I'm haveing trouble understanding this part from the story Neil posted

"Burning of forests by farmers clearing land accounts for 20 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions. A 190-nation U.N. climate conference agreed in Bali, Indonesia, in December to work on ways to reward countries for slowing deforestation.

"Even with quite conservative assumptions, you can generate substantial amounts of money and emissions reductions," said Johannes Ebeling of EcoSecurities in Oxford, England, of a study with Mai Yasue at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

They said a 10 percent decline in the rate of tropical forest loss could generate annual carbon finance for developing nations of between 1.5 billion and 9.1 billion euros ($2.4 to $14.30 billion) assuming carbon prices of 5 to 30 euros a tonne.

Such curbs would represent about 300 million tonnes of avoided carbon dioxide emissions a year -- about the amount of heat-trapping gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, emitted by Turkey, or half the total of France.

The United Nations wants reduced emissions from deforestation to be part of a new long-term climate treaty beyond 2012 to help avert more droughts, heatwaves, outbreaks of disease and rising seas."

As a layman , it reads to me that if the folks cutting and burning the rain forests , slow down by 10% , and industrialized nations pay them carbon credits of 2.4 -14.30 Billion $$$ so the payers can make the same amount of carbon ( no mention of the other polutants involved ) That is going to help save our plannet
Just doesn't make sense to me , so hope you guys can enlighten me on that part.

[Neil]

well,maybe you should find science/global warming forum to discuss these things on.

I have one. It's called My Canadian Canoe Routes (MYCCR) and other than the occasional terse exchange, enviro-political threads usually remain on-topic, orderly and informative.

BS flag taken down , folded , and put away . Saved , however, for any time it may need to be raised again in the future

Should you feel a need to deploy your flag in the future, take two aspirins and PM me in the morning.

[DRIFTER]

I missed whatever took place, however, in my opinion I think the fireside section adds a lighter side to the forum. Its a spot to tell a joke or complain about something or just slide off topic a little. In other words it adds a human touch to what otherwise would be a very limited format. Almost all of the other sections have at one time or another slid into politics and your absolutely right, its a topic that gets ugly real fast. Should those sections be eliminated also, of course not! Certain topics lead to a natural progression of political disagreements,[ e.g.; carbon emissions lead into global warming and that leads into politics!].Perhaps when a topic like that arises, a little more scrutiny towards its content should be in place and shut down promptly if it begins to veer. I would imagine everyone here is adult enough not to hold a grudge due to another's post and I'm sure everyone would accede to your judgement on deleting their post if it crossed a certain threshold on such a thread,[ not counting mine of course]. Cutting to the chase, eliminating the, ' By The Fireside ', would limit what IMO is now a well rounded forum and turn it into something much more limited in scope and depth..........

[chairrock]

I have one. It's called My Canadian Canoe Routes (MYCCR) and other than the occasional terse exchange, enviro-political threads usually remain on-topic, orderly and informative.

I can't resist..must be those uncouth south of the border people that have a problem with being orderly and informative..

[Mavs00]

well,maybe you should find science/global warming forum to discuss these things on.

Hmmmmmm, sounds like someone needs a nap. Night night, see you in a few weeks

[Hobbitling]

Well, as far as the political ban, I was one of those who's posts probably triggered the whole fiasco, for which I feel rather sorry.

Its easy to get caught up in the debate and forget that this is a hiking, hunting, fishing, paddling, camping and general adirondack appreciation forum, not a political, partisan, global issues forum. As important as those topics are, I recognize that this is not really the place. nipping problem posts in the bud is probably a wise policy.

[1894]

I have one. It's called My Canadian Canoe Routes (MYCCR) and other than the occasional terse exchange, enviro-political threads usually remain on-topic, orderly and informative.


Should you feel a need to deploy your flag in the future, take two aspirins and PM me in the morning.

That has to be the most polite way to tell someone what they can do with thier flag or banner that I've ever heard