How long can the ecologically ignorant position that ourOkay, 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*
behavior has no effect on anyone else hold up?
Burning wood is a contributor to global warming, no matter where or how youNot 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
got that wood.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.