What little things have you done

[Sasaferrato]

I think it is carbon positive. Burning wood puts carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would not be there.

Yes.

 

[WouldBe]

Yes.

No.

 

[PTK]

No.

If I burn a tree to heat my bath, rather than heat my bath with electricty produced by a windmill, then I am acting to increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Furhermore, being "carbon neutral" acts to maintain the current high proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The full effects of the current level of carbon dioxide has not yet worked its way through, so to be cabon neutral is to commit to more warming.

 

[WouldBe]

If I burn a tree to heat my bath, rather than heat my bath with electricty produced by a windmill, then I am acting to increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Furhermore, being "carbon neutral" acts to maintain the current high proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The full effects of the current level of carbon dioxide has not yet worked its way through, so to be cabon neutral is to commit to more warming.

Being carbon neutral is far better than using gas and adding to the carbon in the atmosphere.

 

[PTK]

Being carbon neutral is far better than using gas and adding to the carbon in the atmosphere.

Burning trees adds at least as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as burnng gas, if not more.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Burning trees adds at least as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as burnng gas, if not more.

More probably. Gas is methane, burning wood gives off many different gases together with small very unhealthy particles.

 

[WouldBe]

More probably. Gas is methane, burning wood gives off many different gases together with small very unhealthy particles.

How many of those cause atmospheric warning.

 

[WouldBe]

Burning trees adds at least as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as burnng gas, if not more.

The wood I use is waste from wood mills and factories. Well over 90% of the tree is sequestered in the building of houses or furniture. If this waste wasn't burnt it would probably go to landfill where it would rot and release methane into the atmosphere which is even worse.

As wood is required for building (far more eco friendly than using plastic or metal) what do you suggest is done with the waste.

 

[UrbaneFox]

Condoms don't have to be a single-use item. Remember the 4 Rs... Romp Remove Reverse Reuse.

Don't forget Rinse before Reverse.

 

[PTK]

The wood I use is waste from wood mills and factories. Well over 90% of the tree is sequestered in the building of houses or furniture. If this waste wasn't burnt it would probably go to landfill where it would rot and release methane into the atmosphere which is even worse.

As wood is required for building (far more eco friendly than using plastic or metal) what do you suggest is done with the waste.

Well, we can't all use waste wood. What should the rest of us do? (Assuming we have fireplaces)

 

[Saul Goodman]

Don't forget Rinse before Reverse.

5 Rs

 

[Saul Goodman]

Well, we can't all use waste wood. What should the rest of us do? (Assuming we have fireplaces)

Get a load of cats. I use wood pellets as cat litter, and I burn the old stuff in the stove. Cat shit burns surprisingly well. It's nice to see the little fuckers give something back.

 

[PTK]

A Discussion on Cutting Down Trees and Burning Them

“I want to heat some water for my bath. I know. I will burn some gas to heat the water. “

“No, no, if you do that, you will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Burn this tree instead.”

“But won’t burning that tree add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?”

“Yes, but -”​

“- but what?”

“While this tree was alive, it removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

“So?”

“So, by burning it, you are simply putting back into the atmosphere the carbon dioxide it removed years ago.”

“So burning it won’t increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?”

“Well, yes, but it’s what the tree did in the past that matters.”

“Does the atmosphere know or care where the carbon dioxide came from?”

“No”.

“Does the carbon dioxide from the burning of the tree have any different effect from the carbon dioxide from the burning of the gas?”

“No”.

“And, by cutting down the tree, are you not destroying something that was actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”

“Err, yes”.

“But burning gas does not entail destroying something that was actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”

“Um, no.”

“And is it not that the case that wood has a lower energy density than methane gas?”

“Yes.”

“And therefore, burning a tree to produce a given amount of heat produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas to produce a given amount of heat?”

“Well, er, yes.”

“So, overall, would it not be better to burn gas than to burn a tree to heat my bath water?”

“But the tree would not have been planted if it was not going to be harvested for firewood.”

“Do you want to reduce the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or maintain it?”

“Reduce it, of course!”

“Then why are you planting trees with a view to burning them? If you did not burn these trees, then they could absorb the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of the gas. Instead, you burn the trees, and need other trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of those trees. You could have, say, one hundred trees absorbing carbon dioxide, but instead you burn fifty, and release back into the atmosphere all that sequestered carbon dioxide. Furthermore, some of that carbon dioxide that was sequestered was produced by burning gas. So you are in effect allowing the carbon dioxide produced by burning gas to be released back into the atmosphere, instead of permanently sequestering it.”

​

 

[WouldBe]

A Discussion on Cutting Down Trees and Burning Them

“I want to heat some water for my bath. I know. I will burn some gas to heat the water. “

“No, no, if you do that, you will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Burn this tree instead.”

“But won’t burning that tree add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?”

“Yes, but -”​

“- but what?”

“While this tree was alive, it removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

“So?”

“So, by burning it, you are simply putting back into the atmosphere the carbon dioxide it removed years ago.”

“So burning it won’t increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?”

“Well, yes, but it’s what the tree did in the past that matters.”

“Does the atmosphere know or care where the carbon dioxide came from?”

“No”.

“Does the carbon dioxide from the burning of the tree have any different effect from the carbon dioxide from the burning of the gas?”

“No”.

“And, by cutting down the tree, are you not destroying something that was actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”

“Err, yes”.

“But burning gas does not entail destroying something that was actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”

“Um, no.”

“And is it not that the case that wood has a lower energy density than methane gas?”

“Yes.”

“And therefore, burning a tree to produce a given amount of heat produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas to produce a given amount of heat?”

“Well, er, yes.”

“So, overall, would it not be better to burn gas than to burn a tree to heat my bath water?”

“But the tree would not have been planted if it was not going to be harvested for firewood.”

“Do you want to reduce the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or maintain it?”

“Reduce it, of course!”

“Then why are you planting trees with a view to burning them? If you did not burn these trees, then they could absorb the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of the gas. Instead, you burn the trees, and need other trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of those trees. You could have, say, one hundred trees absorbing carbon dioxide, but instead you burn fifty, and release back into the atmosphere all that sequestered carbon dioxide. Furthermore, some of that carbon dioxide that was sequestered was produced by burning gas. So you are in effect allowing the carbon dioxide produced by burning gas to be released back into the atmosphere, instead of permanently sequestering it.”

​

So your answer is to carry on burning gas then.

 

[PTK]

So your answer is to carry on burning gas then.

It would be less damaging to burn gas than to burn trees.
The answer is to produce heat and light using geothermal, wave, tidal, wind, solar, and hydro.

 

[newme]

So your answer is to carry on burning gas then.

I'm on oil which is cheaper and seems to use almost none. EVen when they made the best possible result from a heat pump, it was 3x more. Which considering the efficiencys is impressively crap. Plus that would need £20k of other stuff to achieve, with a currently older boiler. Given new one instead the breakeven between them is way beyond my death and I'm barely 40.