Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist
Burning biomass merely releases the carbon the trees sequestered, but the trees are not sequestering carbon anymore. Biomass is often advertised as leftovers and byproducts, but is then 75% new wood. How is leveling a forest, releasing 101 units of pollution, and not having the trees around to sequester that carbon somehow better than mining carbon, releasing 100 units of pollution, and having the trees around to sequester carbon?
|
Now you get into the difference of an environmentalist and a conservationist.
An environmentalist will deal in absolutes and usually end up at a solution that is worse for the environment.
A conservationist will weigh the pros and cons of each and try to figure an outcome that responsibility uses each resource.
California is a perfect example. They try so hard to "save the environment" they ruin it. Just look up "most polluted cities in America" and California is usually up near the top a lot especially when it comes to air pollution.
Or the thousands upon thousands of square miles of forest they clear cut and spray with roundup to maintain right of way for power transmission lines so they can "save the environment" by not building power plants.
By allowing environmentalist to run everything they ended up with a bunch of pollution and a surplus of stupidity.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
|