4 ms·

Best way to end destructive fires is to light destructive fires. The real purpose of fighting these fires seem to be protecting the logging industry.

by soperj 4y ago

exabrial 4y ago
The majority of the logging industry is a good thing for the planet. When you log sustainably, you take fixated carbon, turn it into a product that can be used, then allow the area to regrow, fixated more carbon as a building product. The vast majority of the time, it's a win-win. The negatives are supplying things like cheap paper to the post office for marketing departments to across to spam people using US Postal Mail. _Thats_ what needs to be stopped, as it's just a waste.
- soperj 4y ago
  I honestly would be very surprised if they didn't make more CO2 logging and turning that tree into a building product than they sequester. Postal spam is likely even more damaging.
  - danielvf 4y ago
    Trees are roughly 50% carbon by weight. Each pound of carbon represents 3.67 pounds of cleaned carbon dioxide. Each pound of lumber represents 1.8 pounds of carbon dioxide our of the air. It looks like both logging trucks and flatbed timber trucks can carry around 24 tons of lumber, which would be 43 tones of carbon dioxide. Sawmills are efficient, and would make a negligible contribution to total carbon. Transportation would be the biggest carbon cost. At least on the East Cost US there's a lot of timber growing so distances aren't too far. Let's say 200 miles total from logging to sawmill to use. 400 miles round trip. Using average US freight truck emissions that's about 0.07 tons of carbon dioxide released. So let's round that up a bit and say 43 tons sequestered for for 0.1 tons expended. Seems like a win.
    - danielvf 4y ago
      Another way of thinking about this: if you burned 1,600 gallons of gasoline to sequester one 3,000 lb pine tree, you'd be net ahead. Unless I'm really off on my math.
      - boplicity 4y ago
        You can't get ahead if you're pulling carbon out of the ground. That's the fundamental problem. Go ahead and burn all of the carbon you want, as long as it's not coming from long-term storage (e.g. fossil fuels), and is rather already part of the carbon cycle (e.g. trees).
      - danielvf 4y ago
        I did do my math wrong. 220 gallons of gasoline for 3,000 lbs of timber
    - soperj 4y ago
      You haven't sequestered anything by getting it to the sawmill, that's only one portion of the journey. Also Using the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator, one ton of carbon is equivalent to 413 gallons of gasoline, so I think your math is off.
- oatmeal1 4y ago
  > The majority of the logging industry is a good thing for the planet. Absolutely not. The amount of carbon sequestered is inconsequential relative to the habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, species going extinct, etc.
  - davidbanham 4y ago
    For clear felling in a rainforest, sure. For clear felling in a timber plantation, probably? For selective logging outside particularly sensitive areas, nah.
stonogo 4y ago
Spoken like someone who hasn't had to spend weeks with off-the-charts smoke-based air quality problems, followed by hundreds of thousands of people having to replace air filters in houses and cars.
- mkoubaa 4y ago
  Why do you get that impression?
  - stonogo 4y ago
    Because not all wildfires are forest fires, and even when they are they can occur in wildlands which are not subject to logging. Some people see "wildfire" and think about the impact on people near the fire as well as downwind communities. Other people see the term and immediately leap to economic considerations.
- soperj 4y ago
  I live in the pacific northwest... If they light the fires in Spring when it's still wet, you don't get the same magnitude of fire in the summer. It would also help if they didn't spray the areas afterwards with round-up so that Aspen (a fire break species) doesn't grow, so that they can plant round-up ready Pine (a species that promotes fires).
  - stonogo 4y ago
    Forest management is crucial, and prescribed burns are an important element there, but it does nothing to stop other wildfires, like the Vantage Highway fire and the one which destroyed so much property around Lind, WA. Not all wildfires are forest fires.
idiotsecant 4y ago
There is very little focus on protecting logging and a lot of focus on protecting suburban sprawl. We live further and further into ecosystems that up until recently could have burned with minimal impact to humans. Now those same forests are full of cabin-mansions and summer homes of people who are rich enough for the system to care about them.
- soperj 4y ago
  In my Canadian province (BC) most of the trees (and fires) are where people don't live, it's very much about protecting their #1 export (tied with Coal)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
notatoad 4y ago
>The real purpose of fighting these fires seem to be protecting the logging industry. also, the rural property owners.

Best way to end destructive fires is to light destructive fires. The real purpose of fighting these fires seem to be protecting the logging industry.

by soperj 4y ago

Best way to end destructive fires is to light destructive fires. The real purpose of fighting these fires seem to be protecting the logging industry.

exabrial 4y ago

The majority of the logging industry is a good thing for the planet. When you log sustainably, you take fixated carbon, turn it into a product that can be used, then allow the area to regrow, fixated more carbon as a building product. The vast majority of the time, it's a win-win. The negatives are supplying things like cheap paper to the post office for marketing departments to across to spam people using US Postal Mail. _Thats_ what needs to be stopped, as it's just a waste.

soperj 4y ago
I honestly would be very surprised if they didn't make more CO2 logging and turning that tree into a building product than they sequester. Postal spam is likely even more damaging.
- danielvf 4y ago
  Trees are roughly 50% carbon by weight. Each pound of carbon represents 3.67 pounds of cleaned carbon dioxide. Each pound of lumber represents 1.8 pounds of carbon dioxide our of the air. It looks like both logging trucks and flatbed timber trucks can carry around 24 tons of lumber, which would be 43 tones of carbon dioxide. Sawmills are efficient, and would make a negligible contribution to total carbon. Transportation would be the biggest carbon cost. At least on the East Cost US there's a lot of timber growing so distances aren't too far. Let's say 200 miles total from logging to sawmill to use. 400 miles round trip. Using average US freight truck emissions that's about 0.07 tons of carbon dioxide released. So let's round that up a bit and say 43 tons sequestered for for 0.1 tons expended. Seems like a win.
  - danielvf 4y ago
    Another way of thinking about this: if you burned 1,600 gallons of gasoline to sequester one 3,000 lb pine tree, you'd be net ahead. Unless I'm really off on my math.
    - boplicity 4y ago
      You can't get ahead if you're pulling carbon out of the ground. That's the fundamental problem. Go ahead and burn all of the carbon you want, as long as it's not coming from long-term storage (e.g. fossil fuels), and is rather already part of the carbon cycle (e.g. trees).
    - danielvf 4y ago
      I did do my math wrong. 220 gallons of gasoline for 3,000 lbs of timber
  - soperj 4y ago
    You haven't sequestered anything by getting it to the sawmill, that's only one portion of the journey. Also Using the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator, one ton of carbon is equivalent to 413 gallons of gasoline, so I think your math is off.
oatmeal1 4y ago
> The majority of the logging industry is a good thing for the planet. Absolutely not. The amount of carbon sequestered is inconsequential relative to the habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, species going extinct, etc.
- davidbanham 4y ago
  For clear felling in a rainforest, sure. For clear felling in a timber plantation, probably? For selective logging outside particularly sensitive areas, nah.

stonogo 4y ago

Spoken like someone who hasn't had to spend weeks with off-the-charts smoke-based air quality problems, followed by hundreds of thousands of people having to replace air filters in houses and cars.

mkoubaa 4y ago
Why do you get that impression?
- stonogo 4y ago
  Because not all wildfires are forest fires, and even when they are they can occur in wildlands which are not subject to logging. Some people see "wildfire" and think about the impact on people near the fire as well as downwind communities. Other people see the term and immediately leap to economic considerations.
soperj 4y ago
I live in the pacific northwest... If they light the fires in Spring when it's still wet, you don't get the same magnitude of fire in the summer. It would also help if they didn't spray the areas afterwards with round-up so that Aspen (a fire break species) doesn't grow, so that they can plant round-up ready Pine (a species that promotes fires).
- stonogo 4y ago
  Forest management is crucial, and prescribed burns are an important element there, but it does nothing to stop other wildfires, like the Vantage Highway fire and the one which destroyed so much property around Lind, WA. Not all wildfires are forest fires.

idiotsecant 4y ago

There is very little focus on protecting logging and a lot of focus on protecting suburban sprawl. We live further and further into ecosystems that up until recently could have burned with minimal impact to humans. Now those same forests are full of cabin-mansions and summer homes of people who are rich enough for the system to care about them.

soperj 4y ago
In my Canadian province (BC) most of the trees (and fires) are where people don't live, it's very much about protecting their #1 export (tied with Coal)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

notatoad 4y ago

>The real purpose of fighting these fires seem to be protecting the logging industry. also, the rural property owners.