4 ms·

Sliiightly misleading headline, although not incorrect in some ways. For about a quarter of the year there are virtually no fires, another quarter (we're there

Sliiightly misleading headline, although not incorrect in some ways. For about a quarter of the year there are virtually no fires, another quarter (we're there now), there are a lot. Further, in most years the fires are much fewer than they are now, and we're now in a record year. So the headline is true, but only for the worst part of a record breaking year. You can't extrapolate it. In general, say per year or per decade, the headline is false, and CO2 emissions are a topic that is spoken about in the context of such timeframes, not 'who emitted the most in a 30 day period in one particular year'. Further, the comparison itself is misleading as the CO2 figures for the US (and all other countries, for that matter), only count burning fossil fuel (and producing cement). Not capturing emissions when fracking? Not counted. Millions of cows farting all over the place? Not counted. Agriculture? Not counted etc. That's why if you compare Indonesia to the US, Indonesians emit about 6 times less CO2 per capita. That's why it's a bit of a weird comparison. You're comparing one country's emissions within limited parameters, to another country's emissions from phenomena that fall outside of those parameters. Anyway obviously it's a big concern nonetheless and a better comparison would probably be that this single industry approximately doubles Indonesia's fossil fuel burning CO2 output on average every year. That's quite excessive for just one industry (last I checked ~8% of exports, with exports at $200b on a GDP of $870b) and it doesn't have to be that way, palm oil can be grown (slightly more expensively) by simply clearing a forest rather than burning it and all the peat underneath. (the peat is really the issue, forest burning itself is often in large part compensated by regrowth)

fredkbloggs 11y ago
> Further, the comparison itself is misleading as the CO2 figures for the US (and all other countries, for that matter), only count burning fossil fuel (and producing cement). Some of the things you note that aren't counted should be counted. But burning trees should not. Those trees removed the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere while they were growing that is given off when they are burned; it will eventually be absorbed by whatever is then grown there afterward. The same thing goes for most (but not all) agricultural processes. The real problem is not the CO2 that's given off, but the CO, soot, and various other organic and nitrogen compounds. Better known as smoke, which fouls the air for critters, like humans, that breathe it. Any change in the greenhouse effect is incidental and temporary. That doesn't mean that Indonesia should not be required to compensate those whose air is fouled, if they wish to continue allowing this. My guess is that if they were forced to do so, they would suddenly find it much easier to enforce their existing law against this type of burning.
- gmac 11y ago
  I call 'denier' on this. The greenhouse effect is 'incidental and temporary' in the same way as a pandemic or nuclear war: if you're thinking in geological timescales and have no particular interest in the wellbeing of human beings. Trees that are cut down (and their predecessors) may have been storing carbon for a long time, and whatever comes next may not store anything like as much carbon (or may be continually harvested and used).
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    I'm not denying the greenhouse effect, nor that most if not all of its modern increase is anthropogenic. You need to go back and actually read what I wrote. The greenhouse effect, if any, induced by burning non-fossil plant matter is incidental and temporary. In other words, on those geological time scales you cherish, as well as a human time scale, the net change in CO2 from burning such material is zero. The only way to make it not-zero is to render that land permanently unusable by any type of plant. Which is certainly possible, but not a side effect of slash-and-burn "farming". There's also the very strong possibility that whatever replaces that vegetation is actually going to grow faster, and thereby remove more carbon from the atmosphere than what was there before. Mature trees, in particular, don't grow very quickly. This is simply a fact. One of us is in denial, all right, but it's not me. You need to get over your excessive fear-mongering; it's not helpful to the cause. Stick to the facts if you want people to believe you.
Retric 11y ago
Sorry, it's a vastly misleading headline, US wildfires release a lot of CO2, but it's counted as ~zero because that carbon started out in the atmosphere. So, the net effect (ed: of all forests) over the US is ~zero in the average year.
- masklinn 11y ago
  That makes no sense unless the forest can be regrown as-is within a year.
  - Retric 11y ago
    It's an average over all forests in the US not just the ones that burned this year.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    No, but there are 30 other forests regrowing in that year which absorb the same amount of carbon as the one forest that burns.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

fredkbloggs 11y ago

> Further, the comparison itself is misleading as the CO2 figures for the US (and all other countries, for that matter), only count burning fossil fuel (and producing cement). Some of the things you note that aren't counted should be counted. But burning trees should not. Those trees removed the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere while they were growing that is given off when they are burned; it will eventually be absorbed by whatever is then grown there afterward. The same thing goes for most (but not all) agricultural processes. The real problem is not the CO2 that's given off, but the CO, soot, and various other organic and nitrogen compounds. Better known as smoke, which fouls the air for critters, like humans, that breathe it. Any change in the greenhouse effect is incidental and temporary. That doesn't mean that Indonesia should not be required to compensate those whose air is fouled, if they wish to continue allowing this. My guess is that if they were forced to do so, they would suddenly find it much easier to enforce their existing law against this type of burning.

gmac 11y ago
I call 'denier' on this. The greenhouse effect is 'incidental and temporary' in the same way as a pandemic or nuclear war: if you're thinking in geological timescales and have no particular interest in the wellbeing of human beings. Trees that are cut down (and their predecessors) may have been storing carbon for a long time, and whatever comes next may not store anything like as much carbon (or may be continually harvested and used).
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  I'm not denying the greenhouse effect, nor that most if not all of its modern increase is anthropogenic. You need to go back and actually read what I wrote. The greenhouse effect, if any, induced by burning non-fossil plant matter is incidental and temporary. In other words, on those geological time scales you cherish, as well as a human time scale, the net change in CO2 from burning such material is zero. The only way to make it not-zero is to render that land permanently unusable by any type of plant. Which is certainly possible, but not a side effect of slash-and-burn "farming". There's also the very strong possibility that whatever replaces that vegetation is actually going to grow faster, and thereby remove more carbon from the atmosphere than what was there before. Mature trees, in particular, don't grow very quickly. This is simply a fact. One of us is in denial, all right, but it's not me. You need to get over your excessive fear-mongering; it's not helpful to the cause. Stick to the facts if you want people to believe you.

Retric 11y ago

Sorry, it's a vastly misleading headline, US wildfires release a lot of CO2, but it's counted as ~zero because that carbon started out in the atmosphere. So, the net effect (ed: of all forests) over the US is ~zero in the average year.

masklinn 11y ago
That makes no sense unless the forest can be regrown as-is within a year.
- Retric 11y ago
  It's an average over all forests in the US not just the ones that burned this year.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  No, but there are 30 other forests regrowing in that year which absorb the same amount of carbon as the one forest that burns.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]