Posted Apr 21st 2010 11:00AM
Lost me at "cubic pounds".
April 22 2010 at 9:55 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThis article explains and confirms what I have been posting for quite a while. North America in a Net carbon SINK.
North America, north of 51 degrees N, absorbs and sequesters every molecule of CO2 its emits into the atmosphere and some more from around the world. This was confirmed by a series of experimental measurements conducted at Princeton University and that resulted in a score of peer reviewed scientific published papers. The papers were never disputed nor refuted, but have been simply ignored.
How? By the means described in this very article. It has set-aside land for National Wilderness, National Forests, National Grasslands, and Private ranch land, farms and Silviculture. A private managed forest is actually much better as a sequester for CO2, than an "mature old Growth forest. Trees harvested for paper and lumber, are replaced with rapidly growing new growth, that absorbs lots of CO2. "Old growth" forests in contrast, are relatively stable, adding little net growth, and so are minimal in their effects in sequestering CO2. That is why the North American private forests sequester much more atmospheric CO2 than the Amazon rain-forest.
There is so much of such land, that on net, North America has become a NET Carbon Sink, despite our advanced industrial lifestyle. So the next time someone demands we sacrifice and cut back a certain artificial percentage or that percentage of CO2 emissions, ask the simple question... Why? On what basis do you demand this artificial number? North America is already BELOW ZERO, and growing so more each year now.
If Europe and Asia are Net carbon Sources, why should they not make the same sacrifices that we have already made?
Let them sacrifice and establish similar forests and preserves; and eschew the economic rewards for doing so. There is plenty of economically attractive land in the sacrifices, that we have made for land set-asides, too.
What do you think the economic value of Central Park in Manhattan is, were it to be available for building skyscrapers? The same applies to the Fens in Boston, or Grant's Park in Chicago, or other such land set-aside all across North America.
Unlike the rest of the World, we have both started and finished our sacrifices to sequester CO2; and provide psychic satisfaction to ourselves and to provide Wilderness for flora and wildlife to flourish.
Guide to donate your car: http://www.vietnamveteranscardonation.org/
April 21 2010 at 3:44 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyBring on the hybrids. I drove a prius the other day. It is somewhat boring to drive, but it gets you to point a or b on much less gas. Donating your car to charities is another good way to help the environment. Instead of giving the car to a salvage yard, donate your car to a reputable car donation organization.
April 21 2010 at 3:41 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplySo, according to the math here:
4 tons of CO2 emitted, EPA rates CO2 emissions at 2421 grams per gallon. Create 4 tons of CO2, you would need to consume 1498 gallons of gas. Even at 20 mpg, that would take you just under 30,000 miles a year. Don't most American drivers average just over 12,000 per year? I guess if everyone just idles their car when they are not driving your math may just work.
Um-- I'd appreciate it if you kept your math to yourself and allowed us to wallow in mass hysteria... Thanks.
April 21 2010 at 3:42 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyNiagara Falls is not all that close the St. Lawrence, but we would love to have an event of the magnitude here anyway.
April 22 2010 at 7:12 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Replygood math there. I am glad you did!
April 21 2010 at 3:42 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyYou guys are reading too much into the "info" on the infographic. Be wowwed by it's bright colors! Love it's artistic focus! Just believe what it says- anything on the internets that is pretty must be true!!
April 21 2010 at 3:30 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplySeriously, I stopped reading at cubic lbs!
Author either needs some science education or a decent editor!
Credibility shot!
So a cube now has 9 faces?
April 21 2010 at 3:07 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyOh wow, most impressive indeed. Well done dude.
Lou
www.ultimate-privacy.at.tc
