Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Healing Hawk doesn't do enough observation

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: lbsaltzman@aol.com
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Healing Hawk doesn't do enough observation
  • Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:31:05 -0400

Toby,

Thanks for saying that. I almost wrote a similar post myself.? I would add to
Healing Hawk, that none of us are perfect, but we are all trying, and if you
think there is a better way of doing something that can be put to the people
involved as a positive suggestion rather than a criticism.?

We also heat with wood, culled from our property, and picked up around the
neighborhood from wood headed for the landfill.? We rarely turn the gas
heater on, and I don't feel guilty about using the wood.?


-----Original Message-----
From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 10:35 pm
Subject: Re: [permaculture] Healing Hawk doesn't do enough observation



Healing Hawk wrote:
> How long can the ecologically ignorant position that our
> behavior has no effect on anyone else hold up?
Okay, Tommy: I can't stand it anymore. The best I can say about the many
statements you make like that is, on this list, you are preaching to the
choir. Everyone here already knows this; that's why we're all here. But
more often, these remarks are accusations toward people on this list,
and that comes off as incredibly arrogant and offensive. So, please, I
respectfully ask that you ease up on the unnecessary and condescending
preachiness. It just gives truth to Che's dictum that "on the Left, we
make our firing squads in a circle." I know a fair number of the folks
on this list--for example, Rain, whom you demeaned for inquiring about
efficient wood stoves and advised that a small electric heater (built
with a staggering carbon footprint equivalent to perhaps 100 large trees
or more http://anthropik.com/2005/10/*peak-wood*
and powered by a nuke or coal plant), would be a better choice for him
than wood. I'd estimate that Rain's ecological footprint is smaller than
that of 99% of the people in North America. He's conscientious and wise
enough to find a source of regenerative, carbon-negative firewood,
which, on this list, is the intelligent and supportive assumption to make.

There are a lot of idiots out there. But not a lot of them in here.
Hurling insults and diatribes around in this small space isn't
productive or informative. So if you gotta hurl 'em, how about making
sure they go "out there" somewhere, where they might hit a deserving target.
> Burning wood is a contributor to global warming, no matter where or how you
> got that wood.
Not true. Anthropogenic global warming is caused almost exclusively by
the net addition by fossil fuels to global carbon flows. You know this!
Burning wood does not add to net carbon flow, since for a couple hundred
million years, most carbon in trees has simply been a briefly
sequestered part of natural carbon cycling. A tree burned in 1750
(pre-oil) didn't add to carbon flux, so it's inaccurate to say that
burning wood now adds to it, when the culprit is oil's addition to the
flow (about 6.5 petagrams per year). Besides, total carbon flow from
plants into the atmosphere is roughly 100 petagrams per year
(see, for example, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OceansGlobalWarming.php
<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OceansGlobalWarming.php> )*
*while the amount of carbon contributed by all human deforestation is
about 2 petagrams, or 2% of that flow. And some tiny percentage of that
2% is human burning of wood for fuel. Utterly insignificant for global
warming, particularly since the carbon is properly part of the pre-oil
carbon flux. Most deforestation is from logging and agriculture, so our
food choices will have more of an impact on carbon than foregoing
firewood.(Fuel wood is a minor source of deforestation, mostly in the
developing world. For us loathsome urbanites it's a by-product of timber
production.)

And particularly for this audience, the statement is wrong. Many of
those I know here are planting trees and using the prunings for
firewood. Result: net carbon sequestering. My own woodlot had three
times as much wood in it after taking 2 cords a year from it for a
decade, and the thinning sped the growth of the remaining trees. You are
literally missing the forest for the trees, and not thinking
systemically, by focusing only on the wood burned rather than where it
came from.

(Just to be provocative, I'll point out that if we burned every tree on
the planet, within a century, or probably much less, all that carbon
would be pulled back out of the atmosphere and re-sequestered into
plants, leaving a brief blip on global carbon flux and almost certainly
no effect on global warming.)

It's my suspicion that while global warming will be hard on humans,
nature will quickly figure out something wonderful and beneficial to do
with all that precious, energy-rich carbon. CO2 and methane are
incredible feedstocks. I'm curious to see how nature will use the surplus.

Wood is a near-perfect and regenerative storage of solar energy, and a
small fuel woodlot can be a superb contributor to carbon sequestration.
As Scott Pittman points out, an efficient, clean burning stove in his
cold (New Mexico) climate needs only two small bundles of faggots a
day--my urban yard of less than 1/10 acre (1/25 Ha) can almost supply
that now in dead twigs while my trees grow and sequester far more carbon
than that.

Wood isn't a good fuel for West Texas. But for much of the rest of the
world, it can be about the best fuel around. You want to see more trees?
Then use wood (intelligently, I don't need to add). That's the best way
to see that trees, instead of being thought of as some idealized CO2
storage machine or other easily forgotten abstraction, are nurtured and
planted. Who plants more trees, by orders of magnitude, than anyone
else? Timber companies. As rapacious and destructive as they can be,
they know which side their bread is buttered on, and their land (as
opposed to the "public" forests their subcontractors destroy) is quickly
becoming some of the best and most innovatively managed forest I've seen.

And finally, using sustainably grown wood for heat forces us to live
within our solar budget, which is not a bad idea.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com




>
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture





________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail.aol.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page