Exploring the Massive Clean Energy Boondoggle of Burning Trees as Carbon Neutral

Image from Smithsonian article below

EPA Declared That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral

In 2018, the EPA Declared That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral.

Yesterday [April 23, 2018], the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would begin to count the burning of “forest biomass”—a.k.a. wood—as carbon neutral. The change will classify burning of wood pellets a renewable energy similar to solar or wind power.

[But] Even if a tree is planted for every tree converted to fuel pellets, trees regrown on plantations don’t store the same carbon as natural forests. One recent study suggests it would take 40 to 100 years for a managed forest to capture the same amount of carbon as a natural forest. And since most plantation forests are harvested at 20 year intervals, they will never make it to the carbon-neutral point.

“Unless forests are guaranteed to regrow to carbon parity, production of wood pellets for fuel is likely to result in more CO2 in the atmosphere and fewer species than there are today,” William Schlesinger, President Emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies writes for Science.

Doomberg picked up on this idea in an extensive set of Tweets. 

Doomberg Tweet Thread

  1. In the second half of the 16th century, Britain plunged into an energy crisis. At the time, the primary source of energy driving the British economy was heat derived from the burning of wood, and Britain was literally running out of trees.
  2. As the supply of wood dried up, its price began to soar and inflation set in, compounding the problem and spreading it to all corners of the economy. With imports from continental Europe insufficient to close the growing supply gap, the resulting crisis was dire.
  3. And then they discovered coal. Well, they didn’t exactly “discover” coal – it had been known for centuries that coal could be a useful fuel – but they did learn that coal could replace wood in many important applications. They also recognized that they had a lot of it.
  4. With a higher energy density than wood, coal is a superior fuel that enabled meaningful improvements in the British economy. Trees could be preserved for construction purposes, homes could be more efficiently heated, and companies could leapfrog their competitors.
  5. It is now well understood that the wide adoption of primary fuels with high energy density enables a better standard of living. Transitioning to higher density fuels is something that usually occurs spontaneously in an economy unless politicians interfere.
  6. It took little encouragement from the British government for its economy to realize the benefits of coal over wood – the inherent advantages of the material and the phenomenon of creative destruction were sufficient.
  7. In another example, the history of propulsion technology at sea is marked by a completely sensible journey up the energy density ladder. Wind power gave way to coal, which was displaced by diesel, which ultimately gave way to nuclear technology in military vessels.
  8. Given this, it might surprise our followers to learn that the European Union and Britain are incentivizing a return to the primitive concept of burning wood for energy on a massive scale.
  9. Not only are they going back to the future, but they also claim doing so is carbon neutral (spoiler alert: it isn’t, not even close). Nearly 40% of Europe’s so-called renewable energy is currently obtained by combusting wood, much of it coming from forests in the US.
  10. In a farce so perverted and obscene that it can only be the work of bloated and arrogant bureaucracies, a carbon accounting loophole is causing huge amounts of CO2 to be pumped into the atmosphere today that will take decades to abate using natural means.
  11. All across the US Southeast, massive industrial feller bunchers are cutting down and stacking mature trees with ruthless efficiency. The resulting logs are loaded onto trailers and hauled by diesel-powered trucks to wood pellet factories.
  12. Once there, the logs are milled, dried, and pressed through specialty extruders at high pressure, all of which require significant primary energy and raise local pollution issues. The resulting pellets are transported to coastal ports where they are loaded onto cargo ships.
  13. The diesel-powered cargo ships make their way across the ocean, emitting CO2 along each of their several thousands of miles traveled. Once in Europe, the pellets are burned, emitting more CO2 per unit of heat generated than any other fuel source currently used at scale.
  14. We are meant to believe THIS process is somehow carbon neutral. The loophole that enables this orgy of deforestation boils down to how and where emissions are counted. In the current framework, burning wood is zero-carbon at the point of combustion.
  15. From the perspective of Britain and the EU, the wood pellets they burn were immaculately conceived – the manner in which the pellets arrived at their power plants is not relevant to their carbon emission calculations.
  16. By burning “carbon neutral” wood pellets and decreasing their use of coal, European environmentalists get to brag to the rest of us about what wonderful stewards of this shared planet they are, all while being among its worst offenders.
  17. Further, the fact that mature trees sequester huge amounts of CO2 compared to newly planted saplings is ignored, making the premature death of that generation irrelevant to the political calculations of environmental impact.
  18. The time value of carbon emissions does not matter to the European environmental elite, despite their repeated hand wringing about how urgent the carbon crisis is, what little time we have to reduce emissions, and the devastating consequences of not acting immediately.
  19. Studies show that the burning of mature US trees absolutely overwhelms the carbon impact of all electric vehicles ever sold in the UK. All the economic sacrifices made in the name of minimizing our impact on the climate are turned into a mockery by this one insanity.
  20. To the credit of some 800 scientists from virtually all disciplines, serious efforts to reverse course have been made. In 2018, a letter was penned that accurately pointed out the environmental bankruptcy of the current biomass accounting policy. They were ignored.
  21. Back in the US, publicly traded companies like Enviva are rushing to meet Europe’s virtually insatiable demand for “carbon neutral” wood. There’s lots of happy talk about responsible forest management, good corporate citizenship, low-impact supply chains, and so on.
  22. Enviva recently announced it is expanding into Germany. On its last earnings call, the company’s CEO proudly announced the signing of the first in a series of agreements with a German utility operator.
  23. Germany – a country proactively shutting down nuclear power plants despite suffering a massive energy crisis – is back to burning wood for power on an enormous scale. For the planet, of course. You could not make it up if you tried.
  24. A single pellet of uranium fuel no bigger than your fingertip provides as much energy as a ton of coal (and certainly even more wood). How many trees will be clearcut before this boondoggle of absurdity is stopped?  

Hey, let’s cut down old growth forests and 200 year old oaks, then replace them with lodgepole pines harvested after 20 years and call it an even carbon deal. 

While we are at it, let’s criticize Brazil for doing similar things to their rain forests. 

This post originated at MishTalk.Com

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

126 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roosevelt
Roosevelt
3 years ago
Poor article…
Wood is renewable and sustainable if managed properly. Wood can store energy with low degradation over time (unlike a battery). It can require little infrastructure (no piplelines or powerlines needed) and produce little waste (stoves are recyclable and ash is fertilizer).
If forests are mismanaged, i.e. dead trees not cleared (a policy that may be implemented to “protect” forests) raging forest fires can result. (It’s a microcosm of a functional economy. If bad debt and malinvestment aren’t cleared, the economy becomes fragile.)
I did not see any alternatives to shipping wood overseas. But I’d be interested to see if shipping natural gas (which has to be chilled to -260 degrees or shipping coal was any better).
Lando034
Lando034
3 years ago
Disagree on this one. Most wood pellet biomass come from waste from other processes, like lumber mills, agriculture, and even tree from tree farms that are unsuitable for the originally planned purpose (damaged, deseased, or wrong species). It then displaces other energy sources rather than getting dumped somewhere. Especially for lumber, if it is used to build something, it is now a carbon sink, and the tree farm replanted. The byproduct of wood/plant fiber pellets just makes the whole process more economically viable.
Mary
Mary
3 years ago
Thank you for highlighting this stupidity. I was unaware.
Webej
Webej
3 years ago
Our culture has more & more embraced advertisement, PR, and magical words.
Outlawing words like “mentally retarded” or “bugger” is thought to produce a substantially different society.
Gaming “the narrative” is thought by the political class who are only playing a role to be all that matters.
And so it goes with energy and all the other woke word games … diversity is a strength, etc.
Until reality arrives and punches the culture in the face, on the verge of happening.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Webej
I’d like to point out that the word retarded is useful only because its become unpopular to say now. They effectively turned the word from slang meaning “dumb” to a actual comparison to someone thoroughly disabled. Theyve given tje word more force by “banning it”
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Timely article with my two man saw delivered today! LoL
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
You from flagstaff? I was born there in 77.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
A two man chainsaw? I remember a two man handsaw my Dad had when I was about 5. In Wisconsin.
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
Standard Oil Of CA, – Chevron, ARAMCO – didn’t like Dick Engel and Syd Ball. Nixon cut them and got Yom Kippur War and ARAMCO
confiscation.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
So where’s the tree get the carbon? Or are we mostly talking manufacture and shipping of pellets. Obviously comparing a sapling to a 200 year old tree is absurd as the 200 year old tree could occupy 500 sq feet while the sapling 10.
Problem really is there is no satisfactory solution to human energy needs at our current density
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago

the comparisons need to be between land use. A old growth forest has some benefits a clear cut has some benefits and a sustainably managed forest has other benefits. If people are in an area coppicing and cutting on 7 year rotations on can use the acre a year cut for some annual food production. Humans are never going to be zero impact nor should they be. In my opinion a human can work with nature to improve it. Our failure is a consequence of many things. But clearly overshoot weighs heavily on this, but that doesnt alter the basic morality of a human carving out a life for himself and his family

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Further evidence of the ineptitude of government.
The real joke is that commercial green houses often add CO2 to the air to induce plant growth.
mrutkaus
mrutkaus
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
I add it to the air in my house to live.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  mrutkaus
The second, and bigger joke, is that all the carbon in coal, oil, and gas was once CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels can be thought of as long-term carbon neutrality.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Seems a bit disingenuous. As if quantity per unit of time was irrelevant
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
I’m not screaming global climate change is an existential crisis. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Of course climate change is an existential threat. Doesn’t mean we caused it or can stop it. It wasn’t so long ago the sahara was green. Sticking our heads in the sand (the right) and screaming like idiots (the left) arent the only choices
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
There are two non-human-caused explanations for ‘the sahara was green’. One has to do with 400 +/- year (and other) solar cycles. The other has to do with precession of the equinoxes–the wobble of the Earth’s axis. Green science denies both because they do not fit the politically acceptable narrative. I suspect any climate change (if it truly exists beyond normal variation of a climate distribution) is the result of those two, a human-impact, and other non-human factors we do not realize.
As for ‘existential’, it is a fad of the pseudo-intellect.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Again I agree we seem to just come at it from opposite angles. My point about the sahara was only that we need to be very conscious of weather trends to avoid some terrible outcomes. can we stop any? Probably not. But can we keep western Americans out of the east when the mass migrations start?
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
Alvin Weinberg, Dick Engel & Syd Ball Oakridge TN molten salt : we don’t know why the gov stopped funding our research ==>
Molten salt was a threat to oil & coal.
mrutkaus
mrutkaus
3 years ago
You can PURCHASE a CO2 generator here:
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  mrutkaus
Geez, make your own CO2 with baking soda and vinegar.
Or, if you have the time, ferment anything using ubiquitous airborne yeasts.
I like dark beers, but leavened bread is OK.
Thetenyear
Thetenyear
3 years ago
These are the same folks who tell us that flying their private jets is carbon neutral because they purchase “offsets”
They think that words without any action will fix things. Instead of fixing bad policy they tell how the crappy outcomes are actually helping us.
Doomberg has been great in pointing out that huge swaths of population have been pulled out of poverty as society climbs UP the energy ladder. Now they want to yank us down the energy ladder while telling us how much better off we are.
Any wonder we keep stumbling from crisis to crisis?
RonJ
RonJ
3 years ago
Reply to  Thetenyear
“These are the same folks who tell us that flying their private jets is carbon neutral because they purchase “offsets””
It is why we are not all in this together, as proclaimed by the elites. I remember when L.A. mayor Villagarosa got caught watering his lawn during drought restrictions.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
We can complain all we want about the 600 billionaires in their jets. Still doesnt mean 7 billion people get jets. Inequality will always be a basic fact of life. Fortunately for the unequal they dont have to enter the eye of a needle to get into heaven. Unfortunately for the more equal than others they quite often have empty vain stressful lives. The ones that don’t often end up selling the family silver for a few more years. Contentment is quite a valuable virtue
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
People are less upset by ‘stuff’ than by rules for thee, and other rules for me.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
governments are criminal enterprises just the way it is. They make the house rules same way a parent makes the house rules. Parents dont ask kids to eat cookies and watch tv and i dont expect them to ask me about their usage of of planes. Any control of a government at all is a miracle
ZZR600
ZZR600
3 years ago
Whatever the environmental argument, the conclusion is quite stark: humanity is taking two technological leaps BACKWARDS! Nuclear back to coal back to wood. This says a lot about the current state of affairs
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  ZZR600
I wonder why it takes so long for people to realize this. To realize that “progress” was a myth enforced by the rise of oil. Take oil away and most “progress” goes away. Possibly to periods well before oil due to having to reinvent those eras with much knowledge lost. Nevermind the chaos of overshoot. Some people want to think politics will solve this problem. Its they and thems fault. But its an inevitable consequence, appeals to magical inventions aside.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
All progress is the result of human innovation, not oil, and definitely not politics. Appeals to ‘magical inventions’ occur because invention has always solved problems in the past.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Lol I’m not even going to begin to describe how woefully wrong you are. Surplusenergyeconomics and mr greer at ecosophia will do a much better and more thorough job than I can here. But the assertion u make in no way reflects reality
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Not to worry.
The scientists and engineers always figure something out.
Or someone like Stalin or Mao does.
Mike 2112
Mike 2112
3 years ago
“Once in Europe, the pellets are burned, emitting more CO2 per unit of
heat generated than any other fuel source currently used at scale.”
The unintended consequences of the Green energy jihad.
Solar and wind arent ready for primetime. But the Greenies went ahead and shut down nuke and coal plants before they had an actual replacement.
So now Europe will emit even more of the evil CO2 as a direct result of their Green policies.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike 2112
Lol just to be clear all the energy nearly is solar, photovoltaic is whats not ready and likely never will be
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
I plan to retire in clime zone 3 and hope to be an owner builder of a very energy efficient home. As is today, it will make sense to build a heat pump-based house. And for those cold nights / period, I will install a Comfort Bilt HP50 freestanding pellet stove.
In GA, the NG industry was deregulated about 10 years ago. While this brought good & bad, the bad part is the Atlanta Gas Light pass through charge every month is at least $25. Paying $25 to have 6 therms of gas piped to my house in the summer is idiotic. The Cobb EMC charge of $28 a month is already bad enough. I’ll gladly put that $300 a year towards bags of pellets.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
When in Iowa burn corn.
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
I will add, however, that my earlier comment is not going to be true when the wood system of energy isn’t done right.

My argument is that wood CAN be carbon neutral. Obviously, moving wood from the USA to Europe isn’t very smart.

Burn local.

Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
Agreed that was really my takeaway from this piece
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Sorry Mish, completely disagree on this one.

I’ve heated with wood my entire life, from the age of zero to now the age of 44. Burning wood absolutely can be carbon neutral, if done sustainably. I burn wood, toss the ashes in the forest behind me which takes those nutrients, combined with carbon from the air and makes new trees. Completely 100 sustainable. Totally carbon neutral. I get heat for free (plus a little effort).

There are now more trees in the USA than there were 200 years ago and carbon mass is increasing rapidly in the USA. This can be easily verified from satellite images taken years ago to today. Yes yes, I know, there weren’t satellites 200 years ago, but we also have land records and know that forest is increasing in size and range in the USA. Even the size of harvested logs is increasing, meaning that forests don’t just have more trees, they have more mass than in previous years.

There’s basically no old growth forests left in the USA and anything harvested today was planted years ago, meaning that whatever damage occurred to the old growth forests, has already happened. No one is cutting old growth forests today in Europe and the USA, no one. What is happening is completely sustainable.

Yes, clear cutting a plot without replanting ever again will not be carbon neutral, but that’s not happening in the USA. In fact, more forests are being planted than harvested, meaning that yes, wood is more than carbon neutral in the USA. It’s becoming a net carbon sink.

None of your points were valid, none of them, because they are based on the false notion that trees aren’t being replanted and that carbon mass is decreasing. It’s not.

worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
Pairing a heat pump with something like a Comfort Bilt HP50 pellet stove with an new build energy efficient home would be the way to go. It get’s you to all electric while giving you a reliable, cost effective, carbon neutral source of heat.
And, I’d love to see a environment impact comparison of the residential wood burning stove industry against the flaring off of natural gas.
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Wood cannot possibly supply all the energy needs of the world. We’d have no forests quite quickly.

However, wood used in a carbon neutral way can supply SOME of the needs without adding any carbon.

Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
Its possible if our society had been dedicated to planting trees instead of consuming iphones
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Wood cookstoves fueled by your own sustainably managed forest are best, they accomplish more everyday tasks than non cook stoves
lamlawindy
lamlawindy
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
Wood stove technology has also come a LONG way since the 1600s: many of the best-made wood stoves in the US are 80% efficient or more. This also applies to pellet stoves, though — if one really cares about one’s carbon footprint — one has to factor in the carbon required to manufacture the pellets.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
So, I cut down 10 acres of 20-year-old trees and burn them, and then replant them without using additional energy, carbon neutrality is reached in 20 years. Is this a postponed existential crisis?
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
10 acres of trees is enough trees to sustain one average size home for forever. You wouldn’t cut down any living trees at all on that property but would merely go around and collect dead limbs and cut down dead trees. If you cut down 10 acres of mature trees all at once you’ll have enough firewood for 50 years but it will all rot before you use it. 10 acres of mature trees is a LOT of wood that will easily last 50 years in most places in the USA if cut down all at once. If you replant it, you’ll have enough for two or three homes sustainably. A general rule of thumb is that 5 acres of woods, if managed, can produce enough wood for one home for forever without any loss of carbon.
You need a quart of gasoline to produce enough firewood to heat a home for a year. Still needs some energy, but virtually nothing.
And, since we are currently growing forests in very large amounts in the USA, there is far more wood mass growing than we are cutting meaning that yes, wood is carbon neutral in the USA, or even carbon negative.
No, there’s not enough firewood for everyone to use, but it can be used by some people sustainable and is a valid piece of the energy puzzle. Currently, there’s wood left to rot in the forest that could power millions of US homes, but because of arcane laws, is left to rot.
Wanna know what wood left to rot produces? Carbon dioxide. Why not burn it to get some energy out of it?
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
I’ve read rotting wood on the forest floor ends up releasing more co2 (or was it another gas, sorry I forget) (personally i’m not overly frantic about co2 though anyway). Not exactly sure I understand why this is the case but perhaps it involves the lives and deaths of the organisms consuming the wood.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
I have had 3 acres of woods supply all the wood I needed to burn–mostly dead limbs or fallen trees, with a lot still rotting.
However, you miss my underlying point. Either there is a real EXISTENTIAL CO2 crisis, or there is not. I suspect ‘not’, based on a simple observation: when something is politicized, critical thinking stops (on both sides).
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
I dont miss that point in the least. In fact my perception of it is nearly exactly as yours presented right there
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
You are an anecdote. If 330 million people heated with wood in the USA, the supply would not last very long, even with economies of scale.
From my perspective, if we accept the premise that global climate change is real, now is not the time to be cutting down trees, whether for wood pellets or erecting solar farms. It is the time to be planting trees on a massive scale.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab

Yes and if every human used as much oil as americans what would happen.What would happen it every human piled into the UK? What about the amazon?What if every human bought a tesla?Yes its time to plant trees, but the 70s was a more appropriate time to start. Whenever I recommend it on economics blogs I get blank stares if not hostility. Perennial agriculture is the only solution to our overshoot problem and even it at this point looks like it would come up short.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
To quote myself, “if we accept the premise that global climate change is real,” the solution will be found in innovation, not carbon credits.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab

The appeal to magical solutions worked in the 70s 80s and 90s but its time to put down the hoop dreams and buy a saw and shovel. Innovation does not overcome the laws of thermodynamics and the universe isnt obligated to supply human’s with cheap energy forever

dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Yes, they’d run out quickly if we all did it. No one is suggesting that. It can certainly be a piece of the energy puzzle.

Wood, biomass, oil, gas, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, tide power, geothermal, etc. Every piece can be used to reduce emissions. If you do not heat with wood then you are heating with oil. There are lots of people, including myself, who use wood exclusively for heat that also do so in a carbon neutral way. There’s plenty of room in America for expansion with wood that is sustainable due to all the waste in the system and ways of thinking. Why not at least try to max out the use of wood? For every piece of wood used for fuel there is less oil burned, so if carbon is a problem (and I have my doubts), you are reducing it with wood, at least somewhat. Some is better than nothing.

It takes 2 full grown trees to heat a home. You can plant two trees in 10 minutes. There is no existential threat from not planting enough trees in the USA. Everyone does it and there are far more trees in America now than before the Revolutionary war, due to the wonder called irrigation and capitalism.

Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
Clearly depopulation is going to be the main driver of energy stability. What gets ruined besides peoples lives a harder question
You dont need capitalism (read the rise of oil) or irrigation to grow trees. Simple water harvesting swales will do just fine if theyre needed at all. Trees mine subsoil for water, irrigation os best left for annuals
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago

Swales is a form of irrigation, only it’s a once and done thing. And you need a form of capitalism to build swales. They aren’t cheap.And it used to be that a person could travel from Eastern Kansas and walk all the way to Colorado and not see a single tree. Now, there are millions of them everywhere in that distance, all across the plains. How? Irrigation, cities planting them along side sidewalks, etc.Irrigation has asbolutely increased the number of trees in the USA. Old farms have been abandoned, Eastern clearcutting has been managed and reduced as a result of greater efficiency. There are more trees in America today than when Columbus landed. Now, the type of tree has changed. There are very very few old growth forests left with giant trees that held a lot of carbon per tree, but there is still more tree cover today than in the past due to the wonder of irrigation.

Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
Doesn’t the number of full grown trees required to heat a home kind of depend on where the home is located?
wmjack50
wmjack50
3 years ago
The Climate Change BS of the Democrat Elite Administrative State is just a method of DC control much like the Chinese CCP’s zero Covid mandate. China is just about a decade ahead of the USA in controlling it’s citizens–The 87,000 IRS agents of the Administrative State will be a Gestapo force as intimidators on the ground(50 agents per county in USA) Also to fix the immigration problem (25 million in USA) just let them vote by drop box–no validation needed.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  wmjack50
I find the whole, “climate change is bs’ crowd vs the “its the end of the world” crowd to be like watching atheists and true believers each obsessed with having others adopt their faith duke it out on a debate stage.
Its ok to not know. Its ok to try and be responsible in our lack of knowledge
lamlawindy
lamlawindy
3 years ago
I agree. However, the “it’s the end of the world” crowd wishes to impose costs on everybody, including those who admit that they don’t know if climate change is man-made. If the alarmists really want to solve the problem, nothing’s stopping them from working on a cheap, reliable energy source. They’re free to develop cheap nuclear fusion or cost-effective hydrogen fuel cells if they wish to do so. Instead, they’ve opted to pursue legislative & administrative programs that impose costs on everyone.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  lamlawindy
It doesnt bother me so much because I understand fossil fuels to be a temporary blip on the human timeline. Do I agree with them Using it as a sort of violence against their enemies? No of course not. But it really only alters the timelines by a few decades or a century at most. If the people wont stand up for themselves then so be it. Do your best to protect yourself and your family and community and accept that a possibly demonic force is pushing up the timeline for their own benefit
mrutkaus
mrutkaus
3 years ago
Part of the zero concept is that the co2 in any and all trees would be emitted anyway, if burned or left to rot
Carl_R
Carl_R
3 years ago
Reply to  mrutkaus
Looking at CO2 emitted in the process in one place, and extracted in another isn’t easy to do accurately. An easier way to grasp what is going on is to simply look at the trees as CO2 storage. Does the process increase the total CO2 stored in trees, decrease it, or keep it the same? Mish argues that the average age of forests used in this way would be 10 years (some freshly cut, some growing, some ready to cut), and that a 10 years old forest stores less carbon than a 40 year old forest, so there is a net decrease in carbon storage. Any decrease would need to be added to the CO2 used to dry and process the pellets, plus to transport them, to get the net CO2 emissions.
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
Except it’s not true on a large scale. Mish doesn’t understand how growing trees work, at all.

If you harvest trees on a 20-40 year schedule, like many foresters do, you start year one off by clear cutting a plot. Those trees lose all their carbon. However, the other 39 plots all increase in carbon storage by an equal amount. You add zero carbon to the air. Zero. Since MORE trees are planted each year than are harvested in the USA because of the profit motive to grow trees, growing trees is currently a net carbon sink. The worthless part of the tree is left to rot in the field and is often picked up by those who heat their homes with wood.

I grew a firewood business this way. Heating your home with wood is more than carbon neutral….it’s a net carbon sink.

lamlawindy
lamlawindy
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist

Based on your prior experience, do fireplace grate heat exchangers work well? I really want a fireplace insert but my wife will not agree on that because she loves having an open fireplace, even though the efficiency is very low. We were wondering if a grate heat exchanger like those sold by HastyHeat will help bump up the heating efficiency of our seasoned wood.

dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Reply to  lamlawindy

I use a wood insert. It works very well to heat a 2000 sf home with only a little oil filled heater in the very back of the house the fire has trouble reaching.An open fire will heat the room it’s in and nothing else, due to the heat being sucked back up the flu. OPen fireplaces are great for ambiance, but not much else. They can even be incredibly dangerous is used in conjunction with a central HVAC that is turned on. Ever see a HVAC suck a fire into the room instead of the fireplace? It happens. If you use AC, use a minisplit that will not suck air out of the fireplace and burn your house down.

Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
Sustainably managed forest generally will have more diversity imo. Old growth forests generally don’t produce as much as edge habitat. Beautiful yes. Should be protected yes. But not ideal to maximize output for people plants or animals. Forest managed for increased edge is prime for most land based creatures
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
It remains to be seen if a ‘sustainably managed forest’ adds to the evolutionary process. Taken to the extreme, we could cover the planet with genetically modified sunflowers, for example, and burn the oil/convert plant material to pellets. Carbon neutral, and sustainable, but evolution would grind to a halt.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
For sure we can do it wrong. We have in fact been doing it wrong since the beginning of cheap energy.
Its complicated because yes its a value judgement. I read an eco minded author once who argued humans can’t improve the environment, but I certainly disagree. It is however a fragile process which contains within it some critical value judgements.
I work some acres and have been for years. I have done it incrementally never destroying anything in totality. The biodiversity on my land anecdotally is much higher than when I started and it reduced my consumption of outside resources. I believe mankind can tune into it’s environment and make it better, at minimum for itself and some other dozens of species
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Also don’t get caught up in evolution. The rate of evolutionary change is a snails pace. Think of how long native americans were separated from asia and europe and still no reproductive separation.
And kind of like your view of “progress”, evolution is not a one way street. Evolution may work to make us idiotic slaves as much as it might turn us into bigger brained gods. To think we can control that process is as audacious as trying to control the climate
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Nuclear fission or fusion will eventually win out. With enough energy you can solve just about every technical problem from shelter to waste disposal.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
I wish.
But as I said above, you can’t even have a conversation about nuclear anymore. Europe should have gone 80% nuclear at least 20 years ago when it was obvious that oil/gas was running down but they’d didn’t. Canada and the US are the same in terms of no chance of getting a project approved.
The only way you are getting nuclear is by dictatorship (hence why Iran for example wants to build them) or martial law / emergency in the Western democracies. Otherwise it’s just endless protests, red tape etc that will block anything before it gets going.
Even the long term storage should have been solved in North America. There is oodles of remote land to store it but the government’s won’t take the dictatorial step of evicting a few people to make it happen so nothing gets done.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Nuclear is being more accepted now even by some rational ecologists as necessary. When I said eventually I was not saying in the next five years. In the future nuclear will not be nice to have but have to have to keep civilization but it will take a time to sink in but it will.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
We better have that come to Jesus moment really soon. Ideally a lot sooner than 5 years. It typically takes a decade or more to build a nuclear plant so if it takes 5 years to get to the point where we start on a plant it won’t be helping for another 15+ years if not longer.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
It’s mostly red tape that causes the long time to build them. Cut that to a reasonable time and you can have them much quicker and there is also the new smaller modular reactors that can be trucked in. The money and the resources are there but the administrations are missing. When the need becomes acute then we will get them.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Every decision comes with consequences. The human species, and nature as whole, does not deal well with unintended consequences. A couple of nuke plant failures…. then what?
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Define nuke plant failure first to know what you mean.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Lol no it wont. Wood will win along with a lot of population decline. Yea there will be no go zones due to nuclear
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
For all you green sustainability freaks:
NUCLEAR FISSION OR FUSION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS ATOMS ARE CHANGED PERMANENTLY.
I do apologize for shouting, but it was a very important point to make.
killben
killben
3 years ago
Western world is bereft of common sense. You can apply to this any sphere – Green energy, climate change, carbon neutral, economic sanctions, monetary policy, immigration policies (tax-payers are footing the bill for politicians’ policies – when the politicians should be asked to pay from their pockets if they want to take on illegal immigrants, student loan waiver etc.). Silly idiots.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  killben
“Western world is bereft of common sense.”
It’s the inevitable result of central banking transferring all wealth, all ownership hence all power; to the dumbest of the dumb. Via completely out-of-control debasement, which has, by now, resulted in 99% of all current demand driving dollars having been simply printed up and handed out to connected morons and their clueless, privileged, dilettante children. With only 1% still having been “made” fair and square and untainted by theft from more competent and intelligent people.
Go into any C-suite or boardroom today, increasingly even in Germany where things used to e better, and all you run into are what are at best mediocrities. Most often straight up idiots. Everywhere! That’s not hyperbole. Not made up for effect. Simple observation. Over decades.
Politics and state administration, by virtue of being even more easily skewable towards simply providing important sounding “jobs” to the dilettante offspring of Fed enriched, connected nothings; are even worse. Significantly so.
Even the military these days, is largely headed up by just straight up dumb people. And just like in companies and civilian government, there too it gets dumber and dumber the higher up the ranks you go. All the way to the top, where the most powerful”leader” in the world, is nothing more than an always-been-a-simpleton-now-he’s-senile-to-boot. He is NOT an exception. Instead, he is exactly par for the course for darned near ANY Western institution by now; 50 years after simple debasement theft became absolutely all there was to any so-called “business.”
The rot has even moved into Academia now. While it’s still hard to get outright obvious nonsense past review boards in traditional, at least hard, disciplines: Funding (which are these days always doled out by utter retards enriched by nothing but Fed theft) is hence increasingly skewed towards “new”, purely made-up “fields”; or at best “new” “areas of study” of supposedly existing ones; less burdened by problems such as literate people at risk of calling out the nonsense. Hence, over rime, even the harder disciplines are under pressure to “modernize.” Which, like all else, is newspeak for: Hiring idiots who regurgitate officially fashionable idiocies, rather than bother with understanding anything and calling out the idiots for what they are so they can perhaps wise up.
It doesn’t help that the real “job” of once “prestigious” universities is, by now, simply to rubber stamp impressive sounding degrees for the retarded children of retarded parents enriched by nothing but the all encompassing Fed theft. After all, for dilettante dimwits, hard disciplines are too hard anyway. So why not make getting their all-important “degree” more attainable for them, by dragging the teaching and research staff down to their level as well? Then they can all sit around and deem and find and hold and decree that “burning trees are carbon neutral,” get their degree, go join the other idiots who waste other people’s money “on Wall Street” after being a fashionable “activist” for a year or two, and that’s the end of that…….
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
Since you believe most people in and out of the government, academia, business, military and basically of society itself are all mediocre then I have to conclude that you think that you yourself are truly exceptionally intelligent because you can perceive the stupidity of all the others while they themselves do not perceive that lack at all and that given the chance you could save the world from its problems.
wmjack50
wmjack50
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
It’s a fact that most USA citizens have the mental capacity of a 7th grader—the massive welfare system destroyed families and the government educational system (affirmative action put thousands of uneducated teachers in the classroom as well( fact) There are many perhaps yourself as well think they are educated but really they have been propagandized and live on feelings etc.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  wmjack50
“It’s a fact that most USA citizens have the mental capacity of a 7th grader”. You lost me at that statement because it is ridiculously wrong.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  wmjack50
Not exactly. The average IQ in the US is 98, and declining. It applies to 7th graders and adults equally. If we want to place blame:
1) welfare is a good place to start. Poor people are poor for one reason in particular. They have babies for money…
2) women’s liberation took high IQ women teachers into the boardroom, hospital surgery etc. Education declined. IQ started to drop.
3) mass media entertains the masses with mindless drivel. Facebook makes influencers of people whose sole claim is popularity
4) higher education became liberal during Vietnam. At the same time liberal educators focused on self-esteem, not caring if it was real or unearned.
100 other reasons
RonJ
RonJ
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
“Safe and effective.” How many swallowed the blue pill? Even Steve Kirsch did, despite an engineering degree, which lead to him inventing the optical mouse.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
You mean Steve Kirsch is still in the Matrix?
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  killben
The rot is probably largely related to the false prosperity over the last 50 years. GDP rises but prosperity does not a d we’re on our third or even fourth generation now of disaffected youth
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
I forgot to point out the false prosperity being mostly due to fossil fuel decline and not too much else besides run amok liberalism which has fed off it
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
Dr Schonfeldt president of “Seaborg Tech” have a different ideas : deploy mini nukes on barges, built by shipyards. Seaborg using
safe molten flouride salt rocks, that don’t release gases, very low solubility in water, that melt at 490 C and mix it with uranium as a source
of energy. It’s safe & cheap. It cannot be used as a nuclear weapon. Need refueling after 12 years. Used safely in the sixties in US. Barges can move anywhere in the world. 200MW on small barges, 600MW on larger ones. S. Korea have sophisticated population and shipyards
that can build mini nukes on barges, sail to remote areas and plug in to the grid.
Dr. Odyssey
Dr. Odyssey
3 years ago
Reply to  8dots
Reasonable idea 8dots.
600MW could supply up to 100,000 homes.
Let’s build them in the states.
RonJ
RonJ
3 years ago
Reply to  8dots
I was reading a story recently, about mobile mini nuclear generators, that could be rolled up to any local utility company, to provide electricity to X number of households. The story talked about 2026 as an availability year for these devices. We’ll see whether that comes to pass or not.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
Peak oil requires that everyone find their pie in the sky solutions
Avery
Avery
3 years ago
The whole thing is a financial scam and ultimately about control of the peons.
Just forget everything you learned in chemistry if you are at least one generation removed from this b.s.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  Avery
“The whole thing is a financial scam and ultimately about control of the peons.”
“thing” being, literally, everything in The West by now.
None of the insanities described in this article is an anomaly. Instead, it is all there is in The West by now. Without any exception whatsoever.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Renewables are not going to get there in time. It’s virtually impossible now to construct hydro dams due to someone moaning about the effect of the dam. Eventually the same issue will be faced by wind (no one will want the giant wind mills or massive power lines in their back yard). Solar can’t do it all on it’s own.
You can’t even have a discussion about Nuclear.
So it’s pretty clear that humanity is going to burn up every last bit of fossil fuel (wood, coal, oil etc) it possibly can before it’s all said and done. The only limitation on whether something gets burned or not will be what’s economically viable. The fact we are burning wood again is a sign things are going in the wrong direction.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
“It’s virtually impossible now to construct hydro dams due to someone moaning about the effect of the dam. Eventually the same issue will be faced by wind (no one will want the giant wind mills or massive power lines in their back yard).”
When you have two choices: 1)Ruining the earth as experienced by all living things; human or not; by destroying rivers, open areas, forests etc… Or 2) “ruining” (if even that) some sandy shale 5000 feet underground where there is little evidence of any life existing at all; you’d have to be a special kind of stupid to argue in favor of the former while demonising the latter.
Of course special kind of stupid is all The West has been promoting for the past 50+ years, so those are now the ones starting to dominate every position of power and influence. With predictable consequences.
Sunriver
Sunriver
3 years ago
Problem solved!
Germany “will get through this winter”, said Olaf Scholz as he announced a €65bn (£56.1bn) package to help households and companies manage soaring energy prices, including a windfall tax on electricity producers.
Certainly Europe can print their way out of the cold!
I’m expecting a stimulus in the United States this winter also.
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  Sunriver
Then i’m expecting some silver coins!
Roadrunner12
Roadrunner12
3 years ago
Reply to  Sunriver
“I’m expecting a stimulus in the United States this winter also.”
Heres one, Biden playing politics with the Dwindling petroleum reserve. Biden authorizing another release from the SPR in November putting Democratic election hopes above American strategic interests.
DOE Announces Notice of Sale of Additional Crude Oil From the Strategic Petroleum Reserve | Department of Energy
“WASHINGTON, D.C.— The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Petroleum Reserves today announced a Notice of Sale of up to 10 million barrels of crude oil to be delivered from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in November 2022. This Notice of Sale is part of President Biden’s announcement on March 31, 2022 authorizing the sale of crude oil from the SPR as continued support to help address the significant market supply disruption caused by Putin’s war on Ukraine and aid in lowering energy costs for American families”.
BlauGloriole
BlauGloriole
3 years ago
The rampant stupidity of the whole ESG narrative makes one weep in frustration. Thank you Mish for continuing to insert common sense on many issues. We all need to strongly push back against strident and entrenched stupidity.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Yep. I read about this boondoggle a few years ago. In particular, regarding the Drax plant in the UK. However, in the overall energy scheme, this is a small part of the big picture.
The big picture is that the world is in a decades long energy transition. Meanwhile, demand for energy continues to increase. And until we create far more renewables (including nuclear), we need to keep using fossil fuels. And there are still a lot of fossil fuels that could be used.
However, one of the problems is that the fossil fuel industry has not been investing the capex needed for the last decade. I have given a half dozen reasons for this before, but in part, it is because they are hesitant to over-invest and be stuck with stranded assets in the future. So there is a current shortage of the largest component of the energy mix. Even with SPR releases from many countries.
In addition, the oil and gas companies have seen their cash flows skyrocket as shortages put upward pressure on prices. This has allowed them to pay down and even pay off their debts. And most importantly, many of these companies have made commitments to their shareholders. They have committed to focusing on shareholder returns rather than on expanding production. Which is why, as a shareholder, I remain committed to holding onto their shares.
I expect shareholder returns to be very significant in the next few years, just like the last two years.
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Just wait for when you greedy oil barons are required to fairly share your ill-gotten fortunes with the honest, hard working people of the world.
🙂
radar
radar
3 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
The way they fix that is by pumping even less, driving the price higher.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I have to hand it to you Papa, you are committed to making money. Yes, oil stocks have a lot of great returns & dividend yields to play out over the next 25 years, until they peak and slowly go into decline. Keep spreading the good news: Hold on them shares!
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
I will let you know when I am significantly reducing my positions.
Still looking into hydrogen and renewables plays.
hmk
hmk
3 years ago
It is hard to conceive that government can be that stupid? I have no idea why nuclear energy is not being pushed to the max. There must be some financial incentive ie, corruption, that pushes these governments, ours included, into making these type of choices.
Siliconguy
Siliconguy
3 years ago
Reply to  hmk
The news media is full of people who are terrified of all things nuclear and radioactivity as well. The public remembers Fukushima and Chernobyl. And the gigantic cost overruns at Vogtle didn’t help. And the Navy never has a press lease that says “Another year of successful operation of X reactors for Y operating hours.”
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  hmk
“It is hard to conceive that government can be that stupid?”
??????????????
It’s government. In the Fed era, to boot. What else would they be?
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  hmk
Because it has a tiny EROEI and no one wants the hassle
ColoradoAccountant
ColoradoAccountant
3 years ago
And people should quit riding bicycles to work because they emit more CO2 than riding in a car,
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
🙂
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
3 years ago
In other words, how to destroy the Earth without the use of military force.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  Six000mileyear
The only upside to all wealth and power having been transferred to the dumbest of the dumb and nothing whatsoever but, is that by now, even the military is so incompetent that they could probably no longer figure out how to destroy the earth, even if they wanted to…….. After all; we’re a “can’t do anything meaningful” society now. Little different than a band of chimpanzees. With the main difference being, those guys are far too savvy to fall for governments and central banks being useful organisations.
slem7
slem7
3 years ago
Trump EPA
JackWebb
JackWebb
3 years ago
Reply to  slem7
The TDS is strong in you. LOL
Raymond_Flagstaff
Raymond_Flagstaff
3 years ago
Reply to  JackWebb
I never could have imagined how obsessed the left became with trump
shamrock
shamrock
3 years ago
On a large scale this is ridiculous on its face, but locally it makes a lot of sense. Burn the wood from trees that have fallen down, that only accelerates the carbon emission process by, I’m guessing, a decade, and therefore could be considered neutral.
JackWebb
JackWebb
3 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
Um, they don’t just take trees that have fallen down. Pay attention.
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Reply to  JackWebb
They don’t. THey cut down a lot too.

But they use the profits from that one tree they cut down to plant two trees.

Wood is completely carbon neutral, at least in the USA. In fact, there’s more trees today than 200 years ago and wood biomass is on the increase in the USA.

There are no old growth forests outside of national parks and such. No one is cutting old growth forest down, no one.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
“Wood is completely carbon neutral, at least in the USA. In fact,
there’s more trees today than 200 years ago and wood biomass is on the
increase in the USA.”
I have a VERY hard time believing that. It *might* be almost neutral if the tree was burned on the very spot it was cut down (ie no transportation cost, no cost to turn it into pellets, cut down with a hand saw). But by the time all the things I mentioned take place it’s not neutral.
Plus the new tree takes decades to grow and pull the amount of carbon out of the air that gets put in the minute it gets burned. That’s assuming the new tree lives that long (disease, forest fire, someone cuts it down early).
Technically burning fossil fuels like Oil and Gas are carbon neutral too, only the time scale is a bit longer 😉
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Believe it or not, it’s true. There is significantly more forest today than 200 years ago, largely due to the timber industry commercializing trees like farms.

And yes, trees absolutely can be carbon neural, or even carbon negative, like here in the USA. Here’s how:
1. Trees are usually planted with 20-40 years plots, staggered so there are harvests each year.
2. Year one=the tree is logged. All the carbon is used from this tree. However, the other 39 plots all have added carbon, equivalent or greater than the tree lost in year. There is currently a net gain in carbon mass from this in the USA. Places like Brazil are of course clear cutting old growth forests which is a net carbon loss. However, I’m speaking only to the USA.

And yes, it’s true that if you ship the wood it’s going to take oil to do so, but wood CAN be done in a carbon neutral way. And many of Mish’s points are just not true for the USA. Forests are not shrinking, they are rapidly expanding.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
I’m aware that there has been an increased ‘greening’ in the northern hemisphere over the last couple hundred years. Not arguing with that. It has only marginally little to do with planting trees and a lot more to do with over all warming and longer frost free time for plants to grow.
But your Carbon negative idea still doesn’t make sense.
Lets say you have 40 1 acre plots you plan to rotate. On each acre there is 1 tree (for simplicity sake). In year 1, you cut and burn 1 tree and the other 39 trees grow 1/40 of a full tree (since they take 40 years, they on average grow 1/40th a year). That means you burned 1 tree and grew 39/40th of a tree in return. If you have 41 plots, then you can grow 1 tree worth (40/40) in return.
And yes, you can plant more than 1 tree replacement per year. But eventually you can’t do that (run out of land to plant on).
Even if you burn in the US, you still have to ship the tree someplace as you never burn it in the forest where it fell. Sure, it may only go 100 miles instead of thousands but it still goes 100 miles to the pellet plant, still uses energy to cut it down (not cutting with hand saws), still uses energy to turn the wood into pellets, still uses energy to go from the pellet factory to your home. Obviously oil/gas have this same cost too (so does most other green stuff like solar and wind).
The only truly neutral way it’s getting burned is if you own say 10 or 20 acres and cut down 1-2 trees a year, plant 1-2 new ones in replacement and you burn that wood in your woodstove. Then it might just be neutral.
dbannist
dbannist
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Yes, that’s what I do. I burn locally. I don’t ship a tree anywhere except in my back yard or a neighbors backyard. I use a wheelbarrow to move it to the woodpile. Helps to have 100 acres in my back yard to play in with all the free wood I’d ever need. No, not everyone has that, but lots of people do out in the country. Those folks that do have that situation, can burn wood carbon free. Not effort free, mind you, but carbon free.

I also grow a lot of the food I eat using no fertilizers and no pesticides. I produce waaaaaay more per square foot than the local farmers do, because I have extremely healthy soil from wood ash compost. More people need to do this.

Eventually, there’s going to be a lot more local stuff as oil becomes too valuable to use shipping stuff like trinkets and wood to places.
Not everyone will be able to burn locally. There’s not enough land. But some can burn locally, and be carbon neutral. If you read the link in Mish’s post Germany isn’t asking everyone to burn wood. They are asking everyone WHO CAN to burn wood, to reduce the use of gas this winter. If some people burn wood, but aren’t currently doing so because of their mindset, and they change their mindset and burn wood, then even a little bit of that will help with the gas situation over there.
Wood absolutely is carbon neutral, if sourced locally. Nearly everyone that burns here sources locally.
Don’t use pellets! Use raw wood that’s free if you have a good back.
shamrock
shamrock
3 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
lol
Dejayajay
Dejayajay
3 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
To add another complication … the trees that have fallen down are an essential part of forming the soil that trees (and all the other forms of forest life) require to keep replicating. This keeps getting more and more complicated. Our only salvation will come from the declining birth rates, of humans of course.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.