Saving The Amazon May Be Cheapest Way To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Los Angeles Times:

Saving the Amazon, Earth's largest tropical jungle, can be a cheaper and faster way to avoid greenhouse gas emissions than replacing coal-fired power plants with renewable energy or switching to electric cars -- although all such measures are considered necessary by climate experts.

Read the whole story: The Los Angeles Times

Comments

[SaltyLassi]

09:36 PM on 02/24/2010

That is a scary photo. And it's common sense. Plus, trees and greenery provide oxygen. IS everyone so dense to realize we are choking ourselves?

[mamacat]

04:13 AM on 02/24/2010

In the big picture, we need to decide that we are not going to keep letting our numbers double every couple generations or so.
When I was a child, there were fewer than 3 billion of us humans, but today we are quickly approaching the 7 billion mark. Even if every one of the nearly 7 billion of us puts out only 1/2 the pollution that a human produced in 1950, we would still be emitting more pollutants than the 3 billion used to.

The surest way to cut emissions is to not overpopulate the planet. No matter what else we do, if we do not find a humane way to control our numbers, we will pollute the planet to death.

[urchinsadrift]

09:54 PM on 02/24/2010

Thank you for volunteering. Can i have your prius?

[realpolitic]

11:11 PM on 02/23/2010

If Brazil was looking ahead, it would keep the Amazon intact and promote eco-tourism to the greatest extent possible. Haiti killed all its trees to make charcoal and now any heavy rainfall becomes a disastrous flood.

[leatherface49]

06:25 PM on 02/23/2010

save th forest why? more crappy leaves all over, just more junk to cleaqn up......cut all that crap down and be done with it

[doubtingdavid]

05:28 PM on 02/23/2010

Doh!!!! Trees and plants consume CO2. Cheaper to plant trees and save the rain forest than algores cap and tax.

[ibsteve2u]

03:54 PM on 02/23/2010

In the interests of full disclosure, I have an additional motive (not quite ulterior, but close) in supporting efforts to contain carbon emissions: The possibility of getting Big Oil's knife out of America's back.

Energy is one of a handful of throttle points that affect each of use every second of our day. As long as we as individual Americans are vulnerable to the price swings introduced by both Big Oil and speculators, we cannot have a stable economy or promise our children a secure future.

Or a peaceful world.

[sheila]

02:42 PM on 02/23/2010

Lest ye forget, the Mojave sequesters as much CO2 as a temperate forest (read, US forests), so why on EARTH are "environmentalists" pushing to slaughter several million acres of it for Chevron Solar profits?

We need to push MUCH HARDER for clean, democratically-owned energy efficiency and generation WITHIN OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENTS instead of killing off even more pristine ecosystems!!

[ibsteve2u]

03:47 PM on 02/23/2010

That disagrees with the data that I have access to: http://www.celsias.com/article/are-deserts-hidden-carbon-sinks/

[bq]
Other scientists argue that absorption alone can't explain the phenomenal uptake in the Mojave, where instruments show a carbon sequestration rate of 100 grams per square meter every year from 2005 to 2007. Compared to carbon sequestration in a Southern pine forest in the U.S, at about 220 grams per square meter per year - or carbon capture in a Finnish forest at about 400 grams per meter - this is an outstanding carbon capture model for terrain with little or no vegetation.
[eq]

That in turn makes using the Mojave as a site for solar energy harvesting to replace carbon-emitting power sources efficient.

[urchinsadrift]

11:29 PM on 02/23/2010

Just wait - it will be the whackos who lead the protests against every 'alternative' energy when it is unrolled on a large scale. There will be lawsuits to unshade the lizards, to restore the flow of wind to the prairies. They are the true party of NO.

[Jpwill]

01:10 PM on 02/23/2010

This sounds iike a total no brainer, except that the rainforest is worth more chopped down to the people who live in rainforest countries. Until that fact is addressed we all need to learn how to be jungle fighters..

http://www.greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/south-america/peru/learn-how-to-be-a-jungle-fighter/

[jmichaelmunger]

12:30 PM on 02/23/2010

Finally someone is addressing the other side of this issue. Carbon Dioxide is a supply/demand pollutant; we can either cut the supply--getting cars off the road, etc.--or increase the demand by simply planting more trees. Why hasn't this been a big talking point?

[travelah]

09:57 PM on 02/23/2010

It is not a pollutant at all. It is a gas found in our atmosphere of which only a tiny portion is of human sourcing.

[urchinsadrift]

11:31 PM on 02/23/2010

Exactly. Or by growing more of all plants, not just trees. Algae would be a great start since it produces diesel fuel at the same time.

[travelah]

12:14 PM on 02/23/2010

While the whole issue of CO2 emissions is bogus in my view, restoring or preserving rain forests is a valid ecological issue. Perhaps if the alarmists were not focusing resources on their fraudulent scheme, matters like this could actually be addressed.

[PWM]

05:55 PM on 02/23/2010

Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859 demonstrated under control conditions that the introduction of increasing greenhouse gasses into a controlled environment showed an increasing rise in temperature as it prevented heat for radiating out.

We know this is true by comparing Venus to say to Mercury. Although Mercury is closer to the sun, the side not facing the sun cools quickly and freezes. On Venus even the part not facing the sun the temperature remains high and cooling is almost nonexistent. The difference is Venus has a high concentration of greenhouse gasses.

On earth we have been increasing greenhouse gasses since the industrial revolution with the burning of carbon based fuels. To think this has no effect is on the level of denying reality. To deny the affects of global warming requires one to refute the scientific research of Tyndall - if one cannot do that, then all one has is uninformed opinion.

What you are doing travelah is denying smog.

[travelah]

09:55 PM on 02/23/2010

Controlled experiments in a controlled environment do not represent reality. Such experiments need to be validated with real world applications. That is what is spurious. Now, I can pretty much tell from your post that you are regurgitating talking points in this matter. The give away is the reference to Venus. That is Al Gore's old ruse. Do you know how much of the Venetian atmosphere is CO2 compared to the Earth? Look it up and then come back and explain to everybody how there is any relationship, any correlation.
I can conduct controlled experiments and raise gases in a tank and increase temperatures by introducing photons. I could construct a simple greenhouse and demonstrate that it is 20 degrees warmer inside than outside. By doing so I would not have replicated our atmosphere nor would I have validated the hypothesis of AGW based on increased CO2 emissions.

[travelah]

10:04 PM on 02/23/2010

I forgot to mention, regarding Tyndall, that it is from his work that we understand vaporized H2O to be the primary radiant gas that affects the overall temperature of our atmosphere. The effect of methane, oxygen,CO2, ozone, nitrogen and other various gases has an almost unnoticeable effect on overall temperatures.
You know you can physically observe this yourself. Note the retention of heat in the atmosphere in the evening during a bout of high humidity in the summer. Walk into a greenhouse on a sunny day. There are any number of things you can do to observe this scientific truth from a layman's perspective.

[urchinsadrift]

11:31 PM on 02/23/2010

Well said