Railways are a useful way to transport things, but H2S strikes me as a vanity project, not a useful way to transport people or goods. Doubling up lines would probably be less damaging to ancient woodland, which has little protection at present, and cannot be replicated. Planting small sticks in the ground is far less useful that managing a woodland which will produce thousands of sticks the same size in a far smaller area.
there are better ways to spend the cash on rail transport
upgrade the commuter network
restore the freight network, not insisting on 6% profit if the job will make 3% would make a huge difference to the viability of rail logistics
upgrade the intercity network (25% faster and more often seems plausible)and put the subsidies into fare pricing rather than shareholder profits
greenish, value for money, not much scope for carpet baggers
sgt.colon
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 Posts: 7380 Location: Just south of north.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 21 8:31 am Post subject:
It's nice to see swampy is still doing his thing.
When they talk about planting trees to offset against carbon, does anyone know how long it takes that one tree to offset the carbon it is planted for?
A very long time is all I can say. Putting a stick in the ground takes a few years for it to really establish, then it starts growing. It is far better to retain existing woodland or start managing woodland as the trees expand their canopy to fill the holes being the equivalent of thousands of sticks in the ground. It is impossible to 'replace' ancient woodland. We have an area in our wood that was planted up from a small field between 1935 and 1955 and it is still possible to see the difference in the ground flora.
When they talk about planting trees to offset against carbon, does anyone know how long it takes that one tree to offset the carbon it is planted for?
2nd thing first, a thousand years or so is a teenage forest, once the last of the milk teeth are shed it will be adult
an adult forest will continue to "learn"(gain species) until the environment has changed enough to make forest impossible, ie millions of years in some circumstances, tens of thousands in others
as to off setting carbon, fast growth and long term use as timber is a fair bet
for geoengineering long term forest is nice, less pretty but more important are the slimy things that live in the top few feet of the oceans
the sea is a far bigger "lung" than any existing or plausible land forest
part 2 see pm
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6613 Location: New England (In the US of A)
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 21 11:24 am Post subject:
You see the article about the newer understanding of whale feeding, and the notion that because they can eat so much more than previously realized, the impact of their ocean fertilization was underestimated, and what was once thought of as a wacky geoenginrering project to iron fertilize the ocean, may be a good idea to help the return of whales, and sequester more carbon in the process.
View Latest Posts