https://youtu.be/q3NhQmsbIwg
Ooof - that animation at 4:10 hurts.
I find this whole process very interesting, but at some point we have to be real about this prospect. Looking at NY we were down to like 6 million acres of forest cover in the late 1800s at our lowest and we're up to like 18.5 million now (we have around 30 million). It hasn't even put a DENT in our carbon - meaning we put out way, way, way more carbon over those last 140 years than those 12.5 million acres took up. Even if we went back to pre-1800s levels which were like 98% forested, it would be a small change in total carbon sequestration. Probably not even enough to offset what we'll put out in the next 30 years.
The data also shows current forest have little change in biomass.
Try again, hippy. :banghead:
Ooof - that animation at 4:10 hurts.
I find this whole process very interesting, but at some point we have to be real about this prospect. Looking at NY we were down to like 6 million acres of forest cover in the late 1800s at our lowest and we're up to like 18.5 million now (we have around 30 million). It hasn't even put a DENT in our carbon - meaning we put out way, way, way more carbon over those last 140 years than those 12.5 million acres took up. Even if we went back to pre-1800s levels which were like 98% forested, it would be a small change in total carbon sequestration. Probably not even enough to offset what we'll put out in the next 30 years.
The data also shows current forest have little change in biomass.
Try again, hippy. :banghead:
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire