Elana Mihaly’s remark on no longer using biomass gasoline (July 2) claims:
“Science presentations that biomass emissions can put extra air pollution into our air and lungs than coal vegetation, and that the most efficient position for timber in preventing weather exchange is an extended lifetime of storing carbon in well-managed forests the place hardwoods are allowed to develop taller and older. It takes a long time for timber to reabsorb sufficient carbon to make burning wooden climate-neutral.”
The “science” tells me the other.
1. A well-managed woodland for trees and effort manufacturing absorbs extra CO2 from the air than an old-growth woodland.
2. I feel there’s a distinction between the various thousands and thousands of years to “develop” coal vs. renewable biomass.
3. The fallacy with the ultimate remark is that it seems to be at a small subset of timber fairly than an ongoing procedure with timber/forests at each degree of progress.
I assume everybody’s “science” is other.
Norm Etkind
Woodbury
