home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.environment
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!well!well.sf.ca.us!hank
- From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
- Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
- Message-ID: <hank.711879926@well.sf.ca.us>
- Sender: news@well.sf.ca.us
- Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
- References: <19106@ector.cs.purdue.edu> <711773819snx@crynwr.com> <JMC.92Jul22215026@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:25:26 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In <JMC.92Jul22215026@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
-
- >A mere scientist should hesitate to intrude in this learned dialog
- >about political and economic system is best for the environment, but
- >what if old growth forests don't consume CO2 but are in equilibrium
- >with the CO2 in the atmosphere?
-
-
- >--
- >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
- >*
- >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
-
- Briefly, even assuming that old growth forests are in equilibrium
- at any given time, they're producing topsoil (which is at least
- half arthropod shit, in the temperate coniferous rain forests).
- The steady conversion of CO2 into topsoil is the contribution that
- old growth forests make (well, they also convert it into salmon,
- and other interesting forms of solidified carbon).
-
- Most of the CO2 released from intensive logging is from oxidation of
- soils, not from the trees.
-
-