Well, humans have sustainably managed woodland for centuries without deforestation being a serious problem, in England at least (obviously there are examples like Easter Island and Haiti where woodlands have not been sustainably managed). It wasn't until the last few centuries that our timber needs resulted in the felling of large areas of woodland. Clear felling woodland for the hell of it with little thought to the future is not the way to go, and I would include that in my general phrase of "stop chopping down forests". The planting and managing of woodland for timber is different, and I would [cautiously] advocate that this is a sensible plan. We couldn't place a blanket ban on the fell of all trees, it simply wouldn't be viable. And at the end of the day, perhaps it is time we fully appreciated the value of timber as our ancestors did. They used it for fuel, income, building materials, and probably lots of other things I can't think of right now!

and we did not have 6 billion people back then to keep warm with wood.

it's not a viable solution.

conservation of the now existing trees, that our ancestors rapidly destroyed and didnt even under stand what they were doing by burning them all up ie killing life as we know it

look man, going back to how things once were, is a fantasy. Industrialized nations will never give up the luxuries they have. it's not gong to happen. a nice dream, but it hardly matters bec that's all it is, a pipe dream, a fantasy.
So, what to do. You find alternative ways to power all the little toys. we're working on that now. so dont fight it, in defence of a screen name

I'm not saying we should go back to how things were, I'm just saying there is no reason not to utilise the good bits of what of what we did in the past. And I haven't asked anyone to give up the luxuries they have. Let's be honest, I'm never going to give up hair straighteners and broadband internet, and I'm a environmental scientist and therefore perhaps appreciate more than most what damage things like this are doing. If I'm not willing to give them up then I can hardly ask other people to!

There is plenty of land across the world that can be utilised for timber if we so desired it. Population sizes aren't so large that we couldn't use use timber for wood fuel if we wanted to. I mean, Britain is a nine times as densely populated as the United States, and yet we still have woodland creation schemes and wood fuel schemes. It's do-able if enough like-minded people get together.

That's just not true.
we're losing a football field a day of teh rain forest
if we keep going at this rate, pretty soon we will have no air to breath
we dont have plenty of timber now, we have to regulate mankind from destroying it so fast.
If you let 6 billion people loose to start cutting down even more trees then the enormous amount we do now. Real quick like, no more trees.
It;s fantasy thinking anyway, it will never happen, because some people actual care and are trying to stop it right now, and will in no way allow someone's horrible idea of letting 6 billion people people cut down trees to keep warm. when that is so unnecessary.
Research: alternative energy
you will many brilliant ideas
you wont find anyone saying lets cut down all the trees and burn them up into teh atmosphere.
hell, in may places that is illegal.
because we like breathing

it;s okay to be wrong about something. You dont have to try so hard to defend something you said. It's okay, everyone makes mistakes. learn from it. not stand your ground for nothing

What are you talking about? Nothing I said in that comment above was untrue.

The rain forest is being lost because there aren't measures in place for sustainable timber harvesting, which makes my point even more valid. If people were taught to farm areas of land for woodland there would be no need to fell trees in the rain forest.

You seem to think I advocated going around felling any old forest, which I didn't [and don't]. There are many commercial woodlands across the world (in the U.S included, though I am primarily thinking of examples in Europe) - all I have said is that we should turn over more land to woodland harvesting. That means getting a field, planting it with trees, and chopping down the trees as required (and replanting). Many governments already do this to a degree. I did not say that we should chop down our existing forests (although if they are crap forests then there is no reason why we shouldn't - sustainably forestry relies on the fact that we replace what is lost and allow it to mature before taking it.).

nothing is wrong wit harvesting timber. a lesson our ancestors didn't really understand.
I came up with an idea years ago- Grow your own home. A place wee you plant hella trees, for your children, and you have them as kids go and care for them, and then one day use them for their house.

My point is. If you want to call yourself an environmentalist, never include using wood for fuel. for if you do, like you did do, no one will believe you.

And believe me you, all already know we are being more careful now about how many trees can be cut down, and planting new ones. I actually used to work for BLM (bureau of land management) whereas we have nurseries, and plant trees that have been cut down, and or lost from fires.

I'll telling you, that burning wood for fuel, is a bad idea, and completely unnecessary. period.

Hehe, I love your idea. We should all grow our own homes! That would be awesome.

I don't call myself an environmentalist btw, and I'm not sure I care for the term. I'm an Environmental Scientist. I guess that does make me an environmentalist, kinda. but no, I don't like the word! It brings to mind people that weave their own clothes and ramble on about the sins of electricity!

Also, there are lots of people that take using wood for fuel seriously. As I keep saying, there is very little wrong with doing it if it is managed appropriately. Heck, the Forestry Commission (that is the British government body that manages Forestry concerns) has been experimenting on its own land (the British government own a lot of woodlands across the UK, harking back to the wars when we realised we were a bit lacking in timber) in producing wood fuel. It is a serious idea and it is being considered by numerous governments. I work for one of Britain's largest woodland estate owners, and we've been considering it too (though at this stage it is just thinking, since we are a charity and therefore will be held more accountable for our actions than a government body would be!).

Burning wood for fuel is not bad - it's an easy way to warm homes, it certainly better than coal stations and nuclear power and it s fuel that will not run out if managed appropriately.

Granted, it may not be a renewable fuel being considered in the U.S, but Europe is developing policies on it and I think Canada has been too.

wood fuel is the worst idea in the world.

we have in place laws to prevent that, for a reason- like breathing clean air.

coal doesnt provide us with oxygen. coal isn't good, and neither is wood fuel.

I have listed some much better ideas in this thread.

find them ;D

and stop saying the world should burn more wood - even if they grow it themselves -others like breathing

if everyone in the world planted 10 trees a day, it would still take years and years to even put a dent in the damage that has already been done.

we have lost miles and miles and miles of forest, and still are.

we can not get that back, it's going to take years and years. IF it was done collectively by all, which it isn't.

using wood for building homes, yeah sure.... would be nice to replace what you take, but even so it takes so long to grow them. and the amount we have lost already....
bricks and metal are nice

i seriously cannot belive we are even having this conversation.

plain and simple: wood fuel is a bad idea, there are much better ideas.

here is one:

save the trees, and lite a fat bitch on fire

oh wait, not that. I mean this: EGS



ps. We share DNA with Trees. They are very much alive. They are our counter parts in life.
Plant life allows us to live. Plant life was here first, and only because of plant life do we even exist.
Respect that!

DNA Study Proves Trees Have Feelings

"Until you plant a tree, water it, nurture it, and make it grow...you haven't done a thing, you're just talking"

Gosh, I think you are a moron. I'm not answering to this thread any more since you clearly only have half-baked knowledge on the environment.

However, since I assume your "breathing clean air" comment is referring to CO2 release, you can click to read about the CO2 emission of wood fuel (it's literally a paragraph long and written for members of the public).

You seem to still be missing the point that if we managed woodland sustainably there would be no net tree loss because for everything that would be felled would be replaced... and you don't fell everything in one go, it is done in stages over time.

In fact, there would most likely be an increase in the number of forests across the globe because people would plant more woodlands so they had more timber.

oh nanny nany boo boo to you to


read your own link
"Doesn't burning wood release CO2?
Yes. Deforestation is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions, equivalent to that of the entire transport sector (cars, aeroplanes, shipping, trains etc).

However, where timber is harvested for fuel, and felled trees are replaced (for example, under sustainable forestry management), the net emissions are reduced.

Sustainable wood fuel use effectively recycles currently circulating carbon. By contrast, burning fossil fuel releases carbon that has been locked up and out of the system for millions of years, so adding to the overall level of atmospheric carbon."



Now please understand young lady. We have better ways then burning trees. stop ignoring that fact.

sure, if we use trees conservatively, that is a big plus. never have I denied that.
We're still losing way more then what we replace, and IF no one ever cut down another tree, and began planting 10 trees a day, it would takes years and years to even get back to what we once had.

There are better ways then burning trees, or fossil fuels. Does wood burning cause less damage then fossil fuels? who fucking cares
both are bad

get that through your head

we have better ways

then your "moron"ic cave man ideals

Stop saying "we" when referring to woodland loss: Britain has seen a 6% increase in woodland cover in the last 10 years. *Some* countries appreciate the value of their woodland (both commercially and environmentally).

Just because the U.S has crap environmental policies doesn't mean every wealthy country does.

I'm talking about the rain forest you dumb ass

does Britain buy wood furniture from china?

There are other, equally, important woodland habitats.

And if you seriously are only talking about the rain forest then I still don't get this argument since I am not suggesting we fell the rain forests. I'm suggesting we plant land with trees and use them for timber. I really don't get how you are not understanding this. It will have no effect on existing woodlands whatsoever (assuming that those who partake in illegal felling don't think "hey, let's illegally fell this planted woodland stock instead". In which case we'll actually be doing the 'natural' woodland a favour by saving it from illegal felling).

I'm sure many Britons buy wood furniture from China (although actually now I think about it I'm sure most Britons by furniture from Ikea, who do use sustainably-grown wood). As a country we have policies on where wood is sourced from and we encourage the purchasing of FSC-approved products, but some people just don't care.

and I'm not arguing against conservation, anywhere.
Nor am I arguing against crops specifically designed to grow the right trees for w/e product it produces.
hemp can produce a lot of things, and doesnt require much water


The point is. when you say more people should burn wood for fuel.
I say, we have better ways than that now. That that is unnecessary.
and if everyone agreed that yes, lets all use wood and not fossil fuels
given that there are 6 billion of us, you get it.... you wouldn't want everyone to burn wood for fuel, bec real quick like, we would cease to exist
The main point being- there are better ways than burning trees for fuel- solar, wind, geothermal, etc etc
and these release no emission at all, or very little. unlike wood burning and fossil fuels do.
electric cars, charged by your roof top
all new buildings must have solar- this is a law that must be passed.
just like here where I live, we have laws against wood burning, bec of the health risk, pollution, etc etc
You cant burn wood here, only at certain times,lol

when one is an actual environmentalist

they dont even consider it to be an us and you game

it's always a we game.
we human beings are cutting down plant life which we need to live on our planet with

conservation is great
growing what you use is great

protect mother earth

solar is awesome
geothermal is awesome
wind and water are awesome
self perpetual magnet free energy machines are awesome

burning wood and fossil fuels, are not awesome

we have better ways

And that is why you are not a scientist. As the link I gave you explained, there is no net increase in CO2 emissions from burning wood fuel. Urgo it will not contribute to global warming.

Also, if you go back to my original post (page 2), you will remember that I said we should have wind turbines and solar power. I'm not saying we should use wood for everything, just heating our homes.

I never said I was an environmentalist. You said that. I said I didn't care for the term (and I still don't, especially now that you've explained what "an actual environmentalist" is).

oh my my

look, i understand what carbon neutral means

do you understand the extra impact that harvesting creates?

do you know what pollution is, meaning the health risk?

is wood burning better than fossil fuel burning? I'll change my answer of who cares when we have better ways. to of course it is, but who cares when we have better ways,lol

(Sorry for only replying now - I must admit to forgetting about the thread and only just remembering that you'd replied :S )

I agree with your use of planes comment, generally. The people that first should be told off aren't the holiday makers though, but the frequent flyers who are flying for that business meeting "they must go to", despite the fact that telephone and now video conferencing have made this possible from the luxury of your own desk. There is really no need to fly abroad for most meetings. What can be said in person that can't be said in front of a video camera?

oh yeah, also one of my original comments, i probably should look,lol

but I had mentioned that airplanes cause cloudy weather do to their contrails, to look into "Global Dimming"

I don't know much about aeroplane contrails (!), but I would narrow-mindedly assume that global dimming was a good thing, since that means less global warming!

But yes, I realise this would be a very naive view to take, given the impact it would have on ecosystems etc., But hey - got to look for the positive in everything!

global dimming is a bad thing, our food, and us, require sunlight. life cannot exist without sunlight, and blocking out the sun with contrails is effecting life as we know it.
This is why I say research global dimming, so as to not be narrow minded about it in guessing. nice guess though :)

Wow theres a new super hero in town! SARCASTRO!!
lol ;)

I should also point out that cars are also causing extreme damage to the environment, especially American cars. Should I assume you don't own a car either?

not electric cars charged with on solar roof tops
and no i dont own a car, i gave it away

ps cars dont make clouds from contrails like planes do. research: "global dimming"