3 ms·

Well, that's the question then: whether the globally negative effect of eradicating trees which bind CO2 isn't worse than the local positive effect of "tramplin

by rob74 6y ago

Well, that's the question then: whether the globally negative effect of eradicating trees which bind CO2 isn't worse than the local positive effect of "trampling the snow [which] will result in a stronger cooling of the ground". My completely unqualified gut feeling: if the climate warms enough, no amount of trampling will save the permafrost...

jonnycomputer 6y ago
The carbon storage of grasslands should not be underestimated however. Most of it is sequestered underground, where it is less vulnerable to wildfire too.
regularfry 6y ago
Grassland also sequesters CO2 - more than forests, by some measures. I'd be more interested in how much methane all these new ruminants were going to produce.
- cameron_b 6y ago
  Most of the studies and methods suggest that rotational grazing or better yet, roaming herds, contribute far more in soils and biodiversity than methane production. Any time you see cows standing in dirt and mud - that is absolutely not what we're talking about. We're talking about the original American Bison herds of (hundred-)thousands who would move across enormous ranges taking grasses from feet to inches, and fertilizing its re-growth as they move. It makes room for accelerated growth of the grass, right when it is most nutritious and stagnant. Prairie and Savanna ecosystems are far more complex than I initially thought. The large animals are not "big lawnmowers" and it isn't "just grass" that they are working with. The soil is a huge ecosystem of its own, and what we're experiencing globally on many fronts (climate, food security, general increased toxicity of air and water) are largely connected to soil failure from our hubris at thinking we can cultivate the green stuff on top with little understanding of what happens underneath.

3 ms·

Well, that's the question then: whether the globally negative effect of eradicating trees which bind CO2 isn't worse than the local positive effect of "tramplin

by rob74 6y ago

jonnycomputer 6y ago
The carbon storage of grasslands should not be underestimated however. Most of it is sequestered underground, where it is less vulnerable to wildfire too.
regularfry 6y ago
Grassland also sequesters CO2 - more than forests, by some measures. I'd be more interested in how much methane all these new ruminants were going to produce.
- cameron_b 6y ago
  Most of the studies and methods suggest that rotational grazing or better yet, roaming herds, contribute far more in soils and biodiversity than methane production. Any time you see cows standing in dirt and mud - that is absolutely not what we're talking about. We're talking about the original American Bison herds of (hundred-)thousands who would move across enormous ranges taking grasses from feet to inches, and fertilizing its re-growth as they move. It makes room for accelerated growth of the grass, right when it is most nutritious and stagnant. Prairie and Savanna ecosystems are far more complex than I initially thought. The large animals are not "big lawnmowers" and it isn't "just grass" that they are working with. The soil is a huge ecosystem of its own, and what we're experiencing globally on many fronts (climate, food security, general increased toxicity of air and water) are largely connected to soil failure from our hubris at thinking we can cultivate the green stuff on top with little understanding of what happens underneath.