Carbon Balance and Management - Latest Comments

Has CBM been taken in? No, CBM rather takes in ...

Georgii Alexandrov — 2008-01-09T05:54:30Z

Re: Befort W: Has CBM been taken in?

It is not unusual that results of a scientific research, written in plain language, looks like a hoax of the reductio ad absurdum variety. That is why scientists are prone to a scientific jargon that only their peers can understand. However, an interdisciplinary journal cannot follow with flow for it is intended to convey research results across disciplinary boundaries. This research is quite understandable when considered in the context of geo-engineering approaches to CO₂ capture and storage (see also: IPCC special report on this issue and the commentary published in CBM [http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/1/1/4]). The results of this research can be also considered in the context of wildfire management, which is essential for protecting carbon stocks in managed forests (see also: comments to the article on CO₂ from fires in the United States [http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/2/1/10/comments]).

Has CBM been taken in?

William Befort — 2008-01-09T01:43:23Z

I've read only the abstract, but I suspect a hoax of the reductio ad absurdum variety. Surely the traditional and comparatively profitable idea of making trees into durable wood products must be nearly as effective in terms of carbon sequestration?

Related C sources

Brian Schmidt — 2007-11-05T02:54:37Z

Interesting article - for policy purposes discussed in the article, it would be helpful to have an estimate of C emissions from firefighting (e.g., transporting firefighters and equipment, bulldozing fire breaks, use of aircraft). Relative to small fires at least, this C source could be substantial and weigh into the decision of whether to fight the fire or let it burn.

This C source doesn't appear to be captured in the model the article used for estimating emissions.

Modern firefighting in the Western US also involves occasionally setting very intense fires to create scorched-earth fuel breaks that are very different from mild prescribed burns (this was done during the Biscuit Fire, if I recall correctly). Separating C emissions from natural fires versus scorched-earth fuel breaks would also be useful for policy reasons, although I expect it could be difficult to measure.

Troubling public (mis)interpretations?

maria gritsch — 2007-11-02T01:43:58Z

This is an interesting study. Unfortunately, the yahoo news summary of the article's findings may provoke misunderstandings, particularly where the summary seems to suggest that planting trees (as a way to offset carbon dioxide emissions) may have the negative unintended consequence of contributing to even greater emissions.

Perhaps the most crucial step that needs to be taken, which is beyond the scope of the article, is better forest management. Instead of extinguishing every small fire, these need to be allowed to burn, as they are in many other countries with more sensible management. Allowing the smaller fires is one step toward offseting the major "century" fires. Of course, also needed are stricter zoning regulations and/or legislation to prevent or discourage housing development on the fringes of public forests.