4 ms·

> 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 pro

> 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.

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.