Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JEB who wrote (264275)	6/15/2002 11:02:25 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Jeb, forest fires contribute basically nothing to CO2 emissions. When the forest burns the mineral etc return to the soil and given water new growth occurs and carbon is fixed back into new forest. A man managed forest will yield more growth and fix more carbon. Destruction of equatorial rain forest does reduce carbon fixing somewhat. But the CO2 that is added is from the carbon that had been fixed for eons as coil and oil. The question is as the partial pressure of CO2 increases will more be dissolved into the ocean and will it also spur growth of all plants. As more solar energy is retained their is more rain on the oceans. This dissolves more CO2 into the ocean. The only real way to produce clean energy in massive quantities today without CO2 emissions is nuke plants. solar and wind power is so diluted and erratic that the millions of production units required with all the attendant modern chemistry products in support would present a mind boggling pollution problem. The carbon cycle is extremely complex, but in the scheme of things forest fires contribute squat. co2science.com some reading. tom watson tosiwmee