ENVR Bill Gates Is Funding a Scheme to Cut Down 70 Million Acres of Forests in North America

155 arty

155 arty

Veteran Member
TheSearcher said:
Why would you laugh at this? Bill and his fellow demons are deadly earnest about this. It's insanity meant to kill us all.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to find and figure out bills schedule and at the right moment, from a place nobody sees comes a shot nobody hears .
 
155 arty

155 arty

Veteran Member
summerthyme said:
I don't know... or care!... about what it might do to the carbon (wondering how chipping it up suddenly "releases it into the atmosphere!), but unless you are then going to mow and maintain the areas where you removed the trees and opened up the canopy to sunlight, in most places, it will grow into an impenetrable jungle of brambles, weed trees and other happy understory growth within 2 years.

Summerthyme
Click to expand...
Uh ...it is my understanding that trees take in co2 and give off o2 so please explain the wisdom of bill gates
 
L

Luddite

Veteran Member
155 arty said:
Uh ...it is my understanding that trees take in co2 and give off o2 so please explain the wisdom of bill gates
Click to expand...
I've been doing some casual research.
There's a crap-ton of research about how much carbon is held in the trees. As well as measuring daytime versus nighttime carbon intake. I don't claim to understand it yet. There's gonna be data. Trust the science. /s

I have mentioned the "Lysenko Controversy" before.

Climate change is many magnitudes greater as far as controversy goes. Jmo

Ftr a "crap-ton" is twice as much as a "$hitload" :D
 
Last edited:
West

West

Senior
summerthyme said:
Oh, I'm far from being against intelligent forest management. But too many people think if they cut a bunch of trees I a woods, only leaving the "pretty" ones with large crowns, they'll get a par-klike setting. Ha! Not unless they then mow (or graze) the open areas religiously... and that's one of the worst things you can do for tree health, wildlife and soil health.

I'll admit I she'd a few tears back in 2006 when we did a selective timber cut of our 60 acre woodlot... letting them mark one huge, perfect black cherry I privately thought of as the "Queen of the Woods" hurt. Sale for several gorgeous, huge and healthy oaks.

But you're absolutely correct that unmanaged "old growth" forests are basically nursing homes for trees! They will eventually renew themselves, but they are very sad to see, if you understand forest health.

When we sold our farm, it had been 14 years since we'd sold the timber, and the Amish buyer paid a premium *because* it was ready for another harvest. In the meantime, we'd heated our home with the cull trees hubby cut in the routine management for high quality timber.

I wish a tree would drop on Bill Gates head!

Summerthyme
Click to expand...
I know you know what I'm getting at. I'm just bouncing off your posts.

Hardwood forests I have less experience with. But in the PNW (mostly Douglas Fir) where they stopped responsible and professional forestry by letting the loggers clear cut, slightly terrace, replant, then thin, thin and manage. In as little as 30 years I've seen with my own eyes the benefits of healthy forest to log over and over again and again...., wildlife and fire suppression....now the so called old growth is dead and dieing. In the last 30 years the PNW (mostly N.Cal) forest are just kindling piles of thrash and dead trees.

It just gets my goat. I loved those forests. And responsible logging with professional forestry practices work great. And I got to see it with my own eyes.

Vary discouraged because I'm a true tree hugger.
 
O

Old Gray Mare

TB Fanatic
So trees that sequester carbon and give off air we need to like breath, simply by living and growing? They want to cut down and bury by use of equipment that burns fossil fuels? To "reduce carbon dioxide" to prevent Global Warming? Do they even think about what they're saying?
:shr:

Double checked. It's not from the Babylon Bee. No really, it isn't.
 
S

summerthyme

Administrator
_______________
Old Gray Mare said:
So trees that sequester carbon and give off air we need to like breath, simply by living and growing? They want to cut down and bury by use of equipment that burns fossil fuels? To "reduce carbon dioxide" to prevent Global Warming? Do they even think about what they're saying?
:shr:

Double checked. It's not from the Babylon Bee. No really, it isn't.
Click to expand...
No, I think this one is from Insanity Monthly...

Summerthyme
 
Sandune

Sandune

Veteran Member
The ONLY way cutting trees and burying them makes any sense at all is to cut and harvest non living trees. The mountain pine beetle has decimated much of Colorado's forests. Some Colorado mountains are even starting to look like Nevada. Other than killing the beetles (which they didn't do) the best they can do now is to harvest the dead trees. By cutting only dead trees they could reduce potential atmospheric carbon by: 1) using any good lumber for building material or 2) burying junk or unusable lumber. Remember, a living tree is a natural carbon sink, not a source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top