By P Gosselin
Oil and gas are already planned…
Since the Socialists and Greens took over power in Germany a year and half ago, the government has announced one ban after the other.
It’s becoming clear that the climate movement is all about stripping citizens of choices, comfort and ability to move around.
One of the boldest initiatives, introduced under the guise of independence from Russian energy, particularly natural gas, was the controversial plan to phase out oil and gas heating systems beginning already next year. In their place, Germans would be ordered to invest in heat pumps – a costly and for many an unfeasible measure.
The latest crackdown on human comfort is the German Socialist/Green federal government’s calling into question the future of wood stoves and pellet heating systems. As gas prices skyrocketed, many German households opted for wood heat using firewood or pellets. But that option for heat has since become environmentally controversial. Today a delivery time for a wood stove is over one year in many cases. Firewood prices have skyrocketed as well.
According to Blackout News here, “From 2024, it will no longer be permitted to heat new buildings with wood. If an existing system has to be retrofitted or replaced, buffer storage, fine dust filters and an alternative heat source such as a solar thermal system or photovoltaics must also be installed. This is provided for in the federal government’s draft for the new version of the Building Energy Act. There will be only a few exceptions.”
And, as expected, criticism has been immediate, for example from the opposition parties and groups like the German Association of Forest Owners, AGDW. But government authorities are saying the step is necessary because they claim more than 20 per cent of all fine dust emissions are due to the burning of wood, which is roughly equivalent to road traffic emissions. Fine dust has suddenly been reactivated as a major health issue again.
The proposed idea of banning wood stove, has however, run up against opposition from even within the government itself. For example, “The SPD parliamentary group has already announced that it wants to prevent the ban on wood and pellet heating in new buildings,” reports Blackout News.
However, controversy is swirling whether heating with wood is even “climate-friendly” at all. The Federal Environment Ministry states that cheating with wood is not climate neutral. Trees are carbon sinks that store CO2. Mass forest clearing not only destroys biotope, but also leads to a premature release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The German Greens, are against wood as a fuel, but supports using wood as a construction material.
Just make certain that Zyklon B is on the banned list. If not, deniers in Germany need to repent fast as a new autocratic regime takes over the government of the country.
Yet the EU says burning wood is renewable. Hence the Drax power station in the UK burns vast quantities of imported wood chips and emits more CO2 than when it used to burn coal. Madness is rife amongst the woke greens and socialists.
Remember, “Coal” starts with Capital “C”
while “Wood” starts with “W”
Carbon with “C” is CO2
carbon with “W” is co2
Capital C is bad and lower case c is good
Wood is cobalt?
Tungsten actually (Wolfram auf deutsch)
“burning wood is renewable”
The proposed government limit on new wood fires is not motivated by climate, but by health issues resulting from air pollution. There is a similar ban in London, for example.
The population density of London is about 5,600 per square kilometre. The population density of Germany is about 235, which happens to be about the same as that of the UK ex London. Drax is outside London. Burning wood outside London is OK. So burning wood in Germany is OK too (but maybe not in Berlin).
Ah but Mr Jonas, have you not heard of the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model for everything Green loons want to ban? Any amount is deadly and is causing trillions of species to go extinct daily.
Guess what, genius, when the option is freezing to death dolts are not a big factor in people’s decision making.
Nick couldn’t give a **** about anyone else.
So long as he can keep his friends at CSIRO happy, that is all he cares about.
Nick, the ban reliable low cost energy movement better known as Alarmists, will adopt any flimsy half truth and turn it into a reason to advance their desires.
Wood burning in one form of another has been around as long as humanity. It seems a bit of a stretch to now declare it too hazardous to be allowed.
The preferred choice of heating favoured by the Alarmists is heat pumps? That is about as unhealthy an option anyone could possibly come up with. The closed living space and tight limits, very tight limits of ventilation needed for heat pump systems to be effective, makes living in such homes very unhealthy.
If the closed homes concept continues, I predict an increase in respiratory illnesses so massive it will be self limiting……
stone age people burned wood in their huts and long houses- very polluting indeed- modern wood stoves burn very clean- not perfect, but it’s not a perfect world and never will be
Yep, they look for any Excuse to get up in arms and in your face.
An EXCUSE can be defined as … nothing but the Skin of a LIE stuffed with reason
It’s motivated by health issues?
You seem rather gullible
For climate welfare, wood is preferred to fossil fuels. But it is smoky.
Climate welfare?
Utter bolleaux
Yes we must look after the climate. Give the climate plenty of taxpayers’ welfare, and throw in some well earned, virtuous “justice” too, that will make us all feel better..LOL! – The climate is treated as a victim.
It is all simply propaganda. Constant garbage spewed out by MSM, central governments, bureaucracies and elite globalists to maintain fear and anxiety in the populace. The inane content ranging from pollution to CAGW and everything in between.
Right. Better for the climate that humanity burns wood is it?
The CO2 emissions of wood are higher of that for coal. Ask Drax.
Furthermore, an entire fast growing tree that might take 20-50 years to mature can be burned in a home in a matter of a week or two.
How long would it take to denude the whole of the UK of every tree?
With around 13 million households, not long I suspect.
That’s good climate welfare?
It wouldn’t be long before the US was invading Brazil to chop down the Amazon for firewood.
“The CO2 emissions of wood are higher of that for coal.”
Not so. That’s GREEN propaganda. Coal adds CO2 to the carbon cycle- burning wood does not because the forests recapture the carbon- as if carbon mattered- it doesn’t.
The wood for burning needs to come from MANAGED forests- then it’s merely a by-product. NOBODY is going to clearcut forests for firewood unless they are severely brain damaged.
Joseph, I agree brain damage is the only possible explanation why forests would be clear cut to provide wood pellets for DRAX. Sadly those brain damaged souls still do exactly that every day. DRAX burns up to 70,000ton/day . They are rewarded for doing that, some £1billion/yr from state funds.
About as insane as it gets.
PAY ATTENTION- the forests ARE NOT CLEARCUT to produce chips for DRAX. The forests may be clearcut under “even age silviculture”- but it’s not to produce chips- which are only a by-product. Most of the wood harvested is TIMBER- only the dregs go into chip production- so please STOP saying “forests are clearcut for chips for DRAX”. This chip production is done over many, many millions of acres of managed forest- much of the entire southeast of the US- it’s the “wood basket” of the world. Only a very small percent of all the wood harvested goes to chips. With even age silviculture- you do clearcut, then replant, then thin after a few decades, then let it grow a few more decades, then clearcut again- at least that’s how it’s done down in Dixie. In much of the US, we don’t do forestry like that- it’s more likely to be uneven age silviculture- with periodic thinnings- leaving much of the trees- the best wood goes into construction lumber or furniture, or paper- what’s left goes into firewood or pellet production. But it’s the GREENS who hate biomass and have fought hard to stop it- with their real goal to end all forestry.
I hear you Joseph. As a woodsman born on a wooded small holding and owner of broad leaf woodlands here in the central U.K. I fully understand the principles of wood crop management. On the Drax front it would be better all round if the plants continued to burn coal. Sadly the draw of easy cash from government agents resulted in the nonsense situation we now have.
On the CO2 issue, I like the idea of releasing more into the atmosphere. It helps trees to grow and provide good timber. Burning coal releases sequestered CO2 back into active service. As an engineer as a woodsman as a beekeeper and as an environmentalist, I do not see anything negative about doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
right- as for worrying about a degree or three- a few days ago we got a late frost here in Woke-achusetts- killing my 3-4 tomatto plants I’ve put in the ground and several flowering plants- and, very unusually, the small leaves on my several red oaks, white oaks and my single chestnut, along with some shrubs- all were killed by the frost- most will recover, but if only the temperatue was an extra few degrees, they wouldn’t have had that damage
Notice how airplanes and cars have evolved in the past century? Guess what, so have wood burning stoves- new ones are very clean burning and very efficient.
How can an option which will decimate the carbon sink AND release CO2 in the process be good for the environment?
(Unless releasing CO2 isn’t really BAD for any of the Biomes)
Let’s show some common sense.
If you clear cut a forest and replant trees, you are NOT decimating the carbon sink. In fact, my intuition would be that young trees probably sequester more CO2 per acre than mature ones, since they do not yet cast off tons of seed/cones that mostly tend to decompose within a year or two. All of the CO2 converted into cellulose builds up the growing tree.
JZ knows a lot about forestry and I’m inclined to assume he’s right until I see evidence to the contrary. It is of course possible that he’s wrong and some companies are pelletizing high quality wood. Those making that claim bear the burden of proof.
It doesn’t make sense to me since lumber is presumably much more valuable than fuel pellets. Why would a lumber company opt to forego profits?
Doesn’t it seem much more logical that JZ has it right that pellets are made from junk wood, sawdust, etc.? That would mean that most of the harvested wood goes to lumber.
That in turn means that the carbon sequestered will most likely continue to be sequestered perhaps for another century, plus the trees replanted in their place will be sequestering additional CO2.
On the other hand I would disagree with JZ on one point not based on his knowledge of forestry. That is his claim that burning biomass is always carbon neutral.
That is clearly incorrect. After all, fossil fuels all originated as biomass that was sequestered, removing CO2 from the fast carbon cycle and drawing down CO2 in the atmosphere-ocean system.
Extracting and burning those fuels puts CO2 back into the atmosphere, obviously at a rate far in excess of the carbon compounds being sequestered by the processes that form oil and gas.
The same logic applies to biomass. Unless the overall plantation is harvested at a rate where the wood processed for burning is no greater than the wood grown during the same year, then harvesting wood for fuel could easily produce more CO2 than is sequestered. Of course the opposite is also possible when fuel production is a small fraction of the lumber produced.
Some trees are bred for harvesting wood-heat pellets. They are not grown for lumber. Check out the State of Georgia.
That’s a pretty vague reference Dave. But for the sake of discussion taking that on your say-so, how does it impact my argument? It calls Joseph’s claims in question but doesn’t demonstrate whether or not it’s sustainable.
Say that you have a fast-growing tree that you grow for pelletizing. Maybe it takes 30 years to mature. If you start out with a forest area 30 times your annual harvest and each year you cut a plot of pre-existing trees and replant with “pellet” trees, for 30 years it makes the most sense to sell the best trees as lumber because that’s where you make the most money.
Thereafter, you’ll have 30 plots of land in 30 stages of growth with a mature plot ready to harvest each year. That would be carbon neutral (as if that matters). If you cut 25% instead of 3.3% then you won’t be carbon neutral.
A corn field is carbon neutral over a one-year period. You grow a crop for a season and then consume it. Trees are just a crop. As long as you grow as much as you take in a year, it’s the same thing. If you cut all the trees in year 1 and move on to a new forest, then you’re not sustainable.
It should actually be a carbon sink. A proportion of the vegetable matter produced by photosynthesis is retained in the soil. The roots at a minimum, and also the stems, leaves and the non-cob parts of the heads which don’t wind up in the bin if the paddock isn’t burned off or grazed.
Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium are a different matter.
Rich, you said; “Doesn’t it seem much more logical that JZ has it right that pellets are made from junk wood, sawdust, etc.? That would mean that most of the harvested wood goes to lumber.” I am simply pointing out that there are forests grown for pellets.
The climate doesn’t care. Wood burned in a properly designed stove is not smokey.
Either that, or his ethics are for sale to the highest bidder.
And just who’s fault is the need to burn wood just to keep warm…
The far left anti-CO2 scum cult that like YOU represent… That’s who !!
That same scum that thinks we are too many on this planet.
The fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution is not a major health issue in Germany.
The EU standard is 25µg/m3, in 2020 Germany’s urban average was 9.36µg/m3.
As long as something agrees with your cognitive bias you seem to believe anything authority tells you.
I read somewhere recently that whilst it’s understood that PM2.5 particulates can lodge themselves in peoples lungs, there is no evidence it does any harm.
Mankind has been breathing the stuff in since time immemorial and it hasn’t stopped life expectancy increasing.
Not entirely logical, HotScot. The correlation would seem to be that as we burned less and less wood in our homes and were exposed to less and less fine particulate, life expectancy increased. Start breathing in more smoke and it makes sense that we follow the curve back to lower life expectancy, no?
Well, you’re forgetting that wood burning using a chimney is far less of an issue than smoke being in the air of one’s dwelling as it was in the distant past.
And of course that the NEED to use wood for heating is entirely due to Eco-Nazi BANS slowly being imposed on all of the cleaner alternatives (read: fossil fuels).
My comment was strictly a reaction to “ Mankind has been breathing the stuff in since time immemorial and it hasn’t stopped life expectancy increasing.”
He didn’t say “burning wood since time immemorial”. The implication is that smoke inhalation has been irrelevant to life expectancy. It is Hotscot who forgets that chimneys mitigated the issue, not me.
The point I made was that there is an observed negative correlation between the amount of smoke breathed in and life expectancy. In other words, smoke inhalation may not be irrelevant as implied.
Chimneys reduce smoke inhalation. Coal, oil, and natural gas heating reduce it further and further as cleaner fuels are used with a chimney.
If the relationship is causal, then increasing smoke inhalation by burning more wood (despite the chimney), will follow the same correlation back to shortened life expectancy.
I don’t forget that the need to burn more wood is driven by the eco-loon insanity, but need doesn’t change physiology. Just because you need to drink contaminated water doesn’t mean you won’t get cholera.
Having said all that, I am not suggesting that wood burning should be banned or restricted (unless the smoke is impacting neighbors).
Perhaps someone should have thought of this before proposing a ban on new gas boilers (which cost less the £3,000 fully installed and commissioned) in favour of heat pumps (which in many Victorian era homes, of which there are a lot in the UK, will cost around £100,000 to install and commission).
£100,000 you scoff?
I have the quotations to have my Victorian, three bedroom cottage suitably insulated, ventilated and modernised and for a £30,000 ground source heat pump installation.
Interestingly, the heat pump surveyor said his company would refuse to install a heat pump as it was unlikely to work properly no matter what we di to the house and they didn’t want to run the risk of being sued.
Further to that particular revelation, last week British Gas, by far the largest UK provider of domestic energy revealed they would also refuse to instal heat pumps in homes they judged they wouldn’t work in.
Now we have homes people won’t be able to heat with gas, wood, coal or heat pumps.
And on top of that, they’re being stolen at near Unprecedented levels and Insurance Companies are refusing to cover their loss
modern wood stoves emit far less pollutants- my old wood stove emitted dirty looking blue-ish white smoke- my new stove emits smoke that looks like steam- it’s still not perfectly clean, but guess what, the world is full of imperfections, necessary for a modern life- in fact, my new stove is EPA approved
I have a 1976 Vermont Castings Vigilant wood stove, it is airtight and has had all the gaskets replaced, it requires an 8″ stovepipe to run correctly. My chimney also has a stainless steel liner. After the wood is burning there is no smoke as the flue temperature is between 400-500F. The stove does have a downdraft reburner (no catalytic) but I’ve learned over the years that a hot flue temp works much better. I haven’t had to clean the stovepipe in 10 years, maybe because I also use soot remover poweder at the beginning of the season.
It could well be steam, the hydrogen in all those hydrocarbons has to go somewhere.
Yes Air Pollution including that Horrific Poisonous CO2
Obviously, if the government says something, it must be true.
Honestly, Nick, just stop it. If “health” was the concern, the govt would be making sure people stayed warm in winter, not inventing ways to make their lives cold, miserable, brutish and short. This has to do with control.
It is true that where isotherms form, there could be an argument.
Our family put in a wood heater for four and a half thousand dollars with a view to have backup heat when the power goes on cold cloudless winter nights if the green revolution blow up more base load dispatchable power.
I collect sticks all year to assist the burn.
Its part of permaculture and a well recognised way of heating.
In the old days trees were cut into logs and used for fire when developments were made or the timber lopped to clear rooves.
Today its all put in a huge chipper and let rot as mulch.
In NZ the locals put in wood heaters with a stove and a wetback for hot water.
This is supplemented by solar hot water and electricity.
This is very sustainable.
In Victoria, Australia, the local councils clear roadsides and leave the timber there for people to
collect rather than burying it or chipping it.
It should be part of litter reduction on forest floors to prevent wild bushfires and the next ,37th,Royal Commission into why they burn.
The Greens just ban good things.
They ‘see the evil’ in something and from a high moral position just ban it.
Modern wood heaters with preheat and second burning of the waste gas make sense.
I collect all the ash and use it on the lawn and garden as a source of minerals and to control the acid pH made by mulching.
Its easy to measure the pH of the soil.
Even if the Greens don’t agree, in Australia we need to keep them away from being the central forum of sustainability.
Because if they become that oracle, we may end up like Germany when most of the world act more rationally by allowing wood fires.
You are wrong. The greens HATE biomass. Read my other comment here- the long one. Biomass actually has EVERYTHING in common with fossil fuels- other than it really is renewable- and the idea that it has a “carbon debt” is absurd. When you’re against biomass- you’re really a victim of the green propaganda. I’ve been a forester for 50 years so I know more than those idiots about forests.
Furthemore, forestry people are mostly conservatives who LOVE fossil fuels. And yes, I know, there is coal and other fossil fuels in the EU not being used- but that doesn’t mean biomass is a bad thing- it means you have stupid governments. It would make more sense to use your own fossil fuels.
The climate movement is all about The “Final Solution to the Climate Question” (“Endlösung der Klimafrage”) with The Great Leap Forward. What could go wrong ?
So strange watching a “advanced” society slowly commit suicide. Would have never considered it as a possibility when I spent a semester at a German school in 1974. The people seemed pretty normal then, lol.
Maybe they are nearing that “straw that broke the camels back ” situation ?
Maybe there isn’t a viable opposition party in Germany? When people vote, they have to make a choice from the options available.
Spare a thought for a real green leader…
“”Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has said he suffers from PTSD after dealing with regular death threats, disasters and terror attacks.””
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sadiq-khan-ptsd-death-threats-terror-attacks-b2342564.html
All part of the victim mentality
Oh dear, the poor little petal !!
Maybe he ought to lock himself in his basement (like Biden) so he can FEEL SAFE !
Or perhaps stop making gormless WEF back proclamations that destroy people’s lives ?
You know,, govern for the actual people he is meant to represent !
Fun fact
The London Underground’s air quality is 9 times over the limit for particulates
Khan says that’s ok because it’s Iron oxide….
Some good news then.
I use my car….
They cite ‘health problems’ coming from particulates but THE worst place for those very things is actually inside people’s houses:
tiny fragments of fibre (natural & synthetic) coming off clothes, carpets & upholsteryalso from simply using paper in any variationstuff being shed by people themselves and any pets they keepPlus myriad volatile organics from plastics, cleaners, detergents, conditionerscooking ‘smells’ and by-productsPreviously, 30+ years ago, houses were very very ‘leaky’
Single-glazed windows in wonky wooden frames let in, also out, huge amounts of outside air and that air/ventilation took away all those things as fast as they were created’
Houses had boilers/furnaces with single/unbalanced flues and those things sucked old air out and fresh air in
Also chimneys and assuming there’s any breeze lowing out-of-doors, the Venturi Effect meant that that chimney was always sucking air out of the house (taking the muck with it) and drawing new air in.
But now, under the direction of Greens, houses are now almost totally sealed plastic boxes, no chimneys, with balanced flues, no draughts or natural ventilation and are stuffed full of stuff that makes ever more particulate. And is Heaven on Earth for rats and mice all myriad other dirty stinking horrors.
The lack of ventilation means moisture can’t escape, so it condenses behind furniture in corners of rooms and especially in the roof space; leading to the worst possible thing for human critters = Black Mould
Having a chimney or a stove is a fantastic way of getting some fresh-air into the place and some muck out. Similarly, unbalanced flues on boilers.
And a gas hob in the kitchen is the original and best ‘air filter’ you could ever have.
Because by definition, all the serious irritants are organic materials and if they get sucked through the flame of your hob while its burning, they are incinerated and destroyed.
Likewise chemical vapour irritants = VOCs.
Stuff like Formaldehyde from plastics or that awful stink that comes from ‘Memory Foam’
What about cigarette smoke or the Acetaldehyde that comes off you after you’ve been drinking – is THAT what’s setting off Asthma in kids?
Hence, The Greens are doing All The Wrong Things with these crazy ban ban bans. They are destroying people’s health while imagining they’re doing things to improve it.
Someone here alluded, this really is a suicidal insanity.
Part 2
Similarly to the horror I discovered in the UK (where 33% of all ’employed people’ work for Government) how many Government Workers does Germany have?
It’s because, come Election Time, they are going to vote (as everyone does) for whoever promises to make their (personal) lives better.
In whatever way. Money, Job security, Pension, Perks etc
On top of those directly employed by Government, are all the subcontractors (Cronies) and they’re going to vote so as to reinforce their personal positions
But the great thing is about Government, wherever it occurs, is that it always ‘Looks After Its Own’
Coming right out of the presumption that all folks who work for Government are selfless individuals who ‘care’ and ‘want to help’
= That somehow they could have much better lives working in the Private Sector
But certainly in the UK, that notion has been garbage for a very long time.
Average pay inside Government is above private sector pay, job-security is rock-solid, working conditions are always immaculate and the pension at the end = Solid Gold Index Linked Guaranteed.
So you see folks inside Government can cheerfully put the screws on everybody else, and yes they will be affected when they go home at 3 or 4 o’clock ## BUT, Government will have made sure they don’t suffer.
Or especially, they look out for themselves, they lie about that, are in self-reinforcing (power, control & money) positions – because every 4 or 5 years they have sufficient voting power to do exactly that.
Yes Brandon, I’m looking directly at you.
## Yes they do go home at 3 o’clock – I witnessed it personally in the main multi-storey car park at Leeds University= jam packed with no spaces at lunchtime and 10% full by quarter past three in the afternoon.
While all the students walked or took the bus.
And 200 haha researchers working in the Climate Change Department – a hideous ‘modern’ glass & steel construction (what does that cost to keep warm) in the centre of the campus where previously (45 yrs ago) was GreenGrass OpenSpace and Climate wasn’t even a ‘twinkle’
Does that ‘thing’ cost £20 million per year to maintain, staff and operate?
Solely to signal virtue and propagate junk-science
While, as I said, the people who paid for it (the students) walk and ride on buses.
In microcosm, it’s perfect innit
fantastic post, good summary
Every spring in Vermont we have a Town Meeting Day where the locals gather in the Town Hall to pass the local town budget. This includes the local school budget. It always seems to pass in spite of the fact that Vermont has one of the highest per pupil costs and also one of the lowest per pupil test scores in the nation.
Of course it just so happens the schools are closed on Town Meeting Day so all the teachers and administrators get to vote while the rest of us are at work…
Thereby demonstrating that Human Nature is more useful and practicable than Education. Maybe there are too many such teachers?
I thought, amongst your many contributions, there must be a little gold waiting to be released. Congratulations!
Wasn’t there a discussion about the heatexchange gas in heat pumps to be banned by EU bureaurats ?
I wonder if spontaneous human combustion will make a glorious come back. With everything combustible being verboten and only heat pumps allowed, running on absent electricity not generated with the verboten combustibles but sometimes only when the wind blows, then the burning of climate activists will be the only option left to stay warm.
Yep, and it won’t be long before fart-lighting will be an Olympic event.
It’s like the Greens have never heard of tree planting or forest regeneration.
They haven’t- yet I argue with them every day, here in Woke-achusetts, the Mecca of climate lunacy and forestry hating. I’ve been a forester for 50 years so I know infinitely more about forests than they do.
Greens, and the left in general, lack any kind of historical sense or awareness.
They know nothing of the past, and their ability to see past the next hour or two is equally non-existent.
Yes, I regard the Climate Crisis Cult as “planet Earth’s history deniers”
They have no clue how, and from what, all the food, clothing and other “stuff” they take for granted is made and made from, and think that electricity comes from a socket and heat comes from a duct or a radiator, with nary a clue how either is produced.
“like the Greens have never heard of tree planting”
Well, that’s work. They’re against work. Never met a Green who ever worked a job that raised a sweat.
German Green politicians and the people who vote for them are insane.
“The German Greens, are against wood as a fuel, but supports using wood as a construction material.”
Because they’re f*****g idiots!
The Germans have been managing their forests for a thousand years.
And, NOBODY clearcuts forests for firewood and/or woody biomass for power plants. When you manage a forest you want to grow HIGH VALUE wood which is worth many orders of magnitude more than firewood or chips. BUT, when you manage a forest, not all the wood is going to grow into high value wood- when you thin a forest you will often have crooked, diseased trees, often of species that simply will never be high value. So, what are you going to do with this weedy wood? And how are you going to pay to do the thinning? If the only market for it is firewood or pellet chips (for for home heating or power plants)- then that becomes a market that MIGHT if you’re lucky, pay for the thinning but often it won’t. Typically, though, in a thinning you’ll remove some of the low or medium quality timber with modest value- that pays for much or all of the cost of the thinning- while leaving the best trees for some decades to produce the best timber. But, you still need to remove the lowest quality wood. You could bury it, but where? You can chip some to be used for landscape or agricultural purposes (for cattle bedding in barns, etc.)- but you’ll have far more than those markets will want. So, you burn the excess low value (actually of no value or negative value) wood.
So, when these f*****g idiots say they don’t mind wood as a construction material- they indicate they have no f*****g understanding of how forestry really works. And, when I and others try to enlighten them, their brains shut down. Actually, they don’t really want wood as construction material. The big movement now amongst crazy tree huggers is called PROFORESTATION– the theme is to let all trees grow- don’t cut any- so the only function of forests is to sequester carbon. This theme was fantasized by a former Tuffs professor, Bill Moomaw, who was a few decades ago, one of the writers or reviewers of the IPCC. He has a PhD in physical chemistry, so he thinks he understands forests. He doesn’t. This movement is catching on across North America and Europe. They’ve managed to stop the development of the woody biomass industry- not just biomass for power plants but also to produce pellets for home stoves.
Another leader in this “end forestry movement” is Mary Booth, also a physical chemist, and also here in Woke-achusetts. Her web site is a big deal amongst forestry haters: https://www.pfpi.net/. The following is her analysis of this worldwide movement to end the burning of wood: https://www.pfpi.net/international-work/. She’s pushing very hard in Europe.
So, as I keep saying here on WUWT, Woke-achusetts is the Mecca of climate lunacy and forestry hating.
Colorado’s very own democrat US Senator Alfred E. Newman (aka Michael Bennett) just started a bill to institute a government censorship bureau:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/democrat-senator-introduces-ministry-truth-bill-that-would/
from that site:
There is no such precedent! Sounds like he wants Soviet style “show trials”. That idiot forgot to study the first amendment:
You are absolutely correct—please note there are now zero Republicans elected (??) to any statewide offices in Colorado. The democrat runs and the democrat wins, automagically. Thus tools like Bennett.
There is precedent, however it is not a “long” precedent, for government creating a committee of government appointees to oversee an industry.
The problem is that there is no precedent of these committees actually improving anything.
What precedent there is shows that these committees always make things worse and that the only people who benefit from the existence of these committees are those who sit on the committees, and those companies who pay the highest bribes to those who sit on the committees.
Not to mention it is just down right unconstitutional, against both the letter and spirit of the law as well as long established case precedent. It is socially and scientifically antithetical to every bit of wisdom harmed and learned through out man’s social development .
garnered and learned
There was the Challenger Commission. Not the same thing as a standing committee and it had no legal standing, but it got stuff done.
Although elected representatives aren’t much better, standing committees are a really, really bad idea.
In my own defense, the original quote specified standing committees that seek to control industries.
Thinning and proper management often cleans up the undergrowth and removes the fuel which accelerates forest fires aka California.
I remember when Trump said, about the fires out there- “they need to rake the forest”- of course that’s not the best way to describe what he really meant which was “they need to better manage the forest- and remove much of the fuel”- but because the way he said it was a bit lame- the Dems laughed and said he’s crazy- but he was right- and, he also said he strong supports forestry- the only president I’ve ever heard say that.
I’m pretty sure that he was talking about how to get rid of dead fall that would end up being fuel for a fire.
Just as in the mind of a progressive you are never progressive enough in the mind of the Greens you are never green enough. That’s why what progressives fear most are other progressives.
If you can’t starve them to death then freeze them.
You can starve to death a lot faster when you are cold.
Let me guess, those “exceptions” will be for the rich and the powerful.
Trees are carbon sinks, but trees don’t live forever. When trees die, what happens to the carbon? (Rhetorical.)
So why is it bad to cut down a tree an replace with a new tree? (Again, rhetorical.)
Meanwhile Google are caught rigging the results of climate searches:
https://youtu.be/KrAw1HGeH4o
Germany is kicking back : today’s MSM Der Spiegel (Mirror) Operation Heat Pump, into chaos with the Greens.
’bout time!
Seems the climate crisis/reset people want to do everything they can to limit any economic capitalization for the home economy of ordinary citizens. it’s not just about emissions. It is a lust for power. They want to funnel us all into one central reality and one market place.