Would timber harvesting help prevent global warming?

Question

I mean if we were able to remove all the underbrush that helped intensify the CA wildfires, would that help reduce global warming?

If the underbrush, the stuff that has died and/or fallen off the trees and such are removed, wouldn't that allow the stronger, larger plants to flurish more and thereby remove more CO2 from the air?

I have to say that I have never seen soil itself burn. Would anyone provide proof that soil actually burns by catching fire like charcoal.

Answer 1

Clearing the trees is not the answer. But clearing the underbrush definitely helps. Some places prone to fires have learned to do controlled burns to keep the brush down. Why is that not used more? (If anybody says anything about the ozone hear I'm gonna puke!)

Answer 2

Trees, like all plants, absorb carbon dioixide through the process of photosynthesis. When a tree or plant degrades the stored carbon is released again. In effect, the trees lost in the CA wildfires were acting as temporary stores. In time they would have blown down, died, been struck by lightning, been felled or met any number of possible fates; all of which would have eventually released the carbon back into the atmosphere.

Now that the trees have gone more will grow in their place and in time they will absorb as much CO2 as had previously been absorbed - all part of a balanced natural cycle.

To have any beneficial effect the trees need to be felled and the lumber prevented from degrading such as by using it in the construction industry (although ultimately it will degrade when the buildings are demolished or the timber replaced).

Because of the climate of southern CA, the trees will have sequestered slightly more carbon than they released when burned. During the time of their growth they will have been a sink for CO2 by an amount greater than that released when they burned. Provided the affected areas are allowed to repopulate with trees, the long term effect (100+ years or so) will be ever so slightly beneficial in respect of global warming.

The removal of the underbrush would probably have slowed the spread of the fires but in the larger scheme of things wouldn't have had much effect on global warming.

Answer 3

If you remove all the dead material what will the plants and trees that remain live on? It is not just the under brush that burns but the soil itself catches fire and burns like charcoal. How much of the bio-mass do you propose to remove?

Forest fires are part of the natural cycle of the earth. No one cares much that Alaska has million acre forest fires, but in California the fires also took houses down. That is the real news---how many houses were burnt up, not the fire itself. It would be a much better idea to limit how many houses can be built in such dry areas.

We laugh at people of New Orleans for re-building below sea level, yet these displaced Californians just can't wait to start rebuilding their homes on top of the ashes of the previous house---knowing full well that the fires have happened and will happen again. It is impossible to make such a dry area a safe place to build a house, so we need to build a house that can survive the next fire.

As long as people insist on bending nature to fit man, then man LOSES. It is just a matter of time until nature reasserts itself and nature is very very patient.

Answer 4

Ummm..... the fire in CA had nothing to do with global warming. It was a kid with matches. Don't clear out the underbrush! It's part of a natural system, that material decays and becomes fertile soil for future generations of vegetation. If you were to remove it, the soil would become loose and give way to erosion. It would be less fertile, and so less plants would grow (eventually meaning they recycle less CO2). Don't mess with mother nature's system!

Edit: I find it amusing that I am a global warming skeptic, and the environmentalists concur with my reasoning (it is after all, the truth based on evidence) and yet they are getting thumbs down.

Answer 5

Global warming is is a natural cycle that the planet is going through just like it has cooled off and heated up many times in the past. In the 70's scientists were recording global drops in temperature and the same groups that are crying now about the ice caps melting were crying then about another ice age.

Removing the underbrush and dead trees would help to prevent forest fires like what we just saw in CA by clearing away a lot of the fuel that fire uses.

Answer 6

HERE COMES THE FIGHT!!
Without a planned , reliable, effecient, researched and updated program of clearing of dead/dying undergrowth, especially in areas such as California, NOW GET THIS TREEHUGGERS! California will continure to see larger and greater and greater reoccurring wildfires like we saw lastweeek. Just the CO2 and Carbon released by the fire las week alone will take years to compensate with meager plans and so called "Carbon Crediting" the greens have come up with. You want to see the average joe get on your bandwagon? Start doing commonsense things and quit being so hypocritical......
1. STars and Politicins should quit unsing private corporate jets. Even at full seating capacity they are huge carbon wasters comparered to Commercial Jets.
2. Quit building mulit million dollar homes with 58 bathrooms when your family, even with your maids and nannys and cooks only account for 14 people. Look at all the rooms you are eiher heating or cooling that are not being used.
3. Allow common sense well developed scientific Department of Natural Resources Cutoffs and clearouts in National forrests. A few well placed acres can save untold thousands of acres and their habitat.
4. Realize that we are going to have to use the Coal and Nature gas we have under our country to get us off the OPEC oil and give us energy until we can develop renewable sources. Where I live in S Illinois, we have enough coal to generate electricity and make fuel for years and years AND the new cleaner burning technology is available . Maybe not what we eventually want but it is a good conversion fuel. 6. Biodiesel is NOT NOT the answer. It burns dirtier than gas and maybe even the newer coal processes AND the corn it takes for 1 gallon of biodiesel can feed a starving kid in africa a whole year. HUCKABEE HAS BEEN WORKING ON THESE IDEAS FOR QUITE AWILE BUT NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION. AND HUCKABEE WANTS ALL CANDIDATES TO SUBMIT TO DRUG/ALCOHOL URINE SCREEN TESTS BEORE THE FIRST VOTES ARE CAST AT EACH PRIMARY WITH THE RESULTS POSTED AT ALL POLLING PLACES. GET THE WORD OUT!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 7

Not really. It would help reduce the damage from firres. However, it would also destroy the ecology of the area. That underbuush is part of the exosystem--providing sustanence for animals, etc. The whole ecology is interdependant--making changes is usually counterproductive

In addition--removing all the undrbrush also removes part of the forst/ecosystem that helps to retain water. You'll end up with a drier forest area--so you are jsut as likely to make things worse when a fire does start.

Answer 8

It depends on what you do with the stuff you remove. If you burn it, or allow it to decay, all the carbon in those plants just returns to the environment.

If you want to reduce global warming, you need to take that stuff and get it out of the carbon cycle permanently. That means burying it so deep it can't decay, or sinking it in a deep part of the ocean.

Neither of those seems like a practical alternative.

Answer 9

In that case it would be like cutting your feet to fit into a smaller size shoes. we should be controlling the tree growth & trimming them when needed not totally removing it. Harvesting plant tree instead of cutting down wild forest may be can prevent global warming.

Answer 10

Removing vegitation and putting it into a landfill might reduce atmospheric CO2, but it the idea of putting vegitation into landfill has not been discussed presumably because it would create negative emotions in a lot of people.

Reducing the risk of fire would also provide a short term reduction in atmospheric CO2.