Saving the world through increased consumption

[jeff5may]

Originally Posted by Leafgreen

Cooking with wood is not "carbon neutral". You are referring to carbon emissions into the air. Yeah, wood contains carbon. But if you throw a log into a forest, it won't end up as smoke in the air, unless it gets burned.

This sounds too much like the ethanol fuel debate... don't starve the world by using up all the corn for fuel... distilling alcohol is immoral... your car won't run on it... methanol won't work either... freedom of choice is bad... blaggety blaargh.

The real question is: wouldn't my turds replace the scorched wood after I digested that massive, juicy steak? Or is that just another form of restricted waste to sequester?

[Solar Mike]

Originally Posted by Leafgreen

Cooking with wood is not "carbon neutral". You are referring to carbon emissions into the air. Yeah, wood contains carbon. But if you throw a log into a forest, it won't end up as smoke in the air, unless it gets burned.

Sorry incorrect, when logs decompose or rot on the forest floor, their carbon is released by bacteria etc, just takes longer than burning it. Science behind this is called "The Carbon Cycle", used to be taught in schools here in NZ.

[Mikesolar]

Ohoh, looks like there will be some name confusion here, Solar Mike, haha.

I think one of the issues was over propane use. I believe Cali banned (or will ban) fire starter fluids and of course 2 stroke engines are phased out. The low hanging fruit is disappearing so they are going after other things.

There are just too many sources of pollutants and too many of us. If we all decided to go carbon "neutral" and burned wood, where would we be? all trees gone and sky full of smoke. Oh yea, the west is burning already so we know what it would be like.

[oil pan 4]

Seems kinda pointless with the entire state of California on fire from one end to the other polluting the air as far east as NY. Oh and good thing they have their own emissions stands yeah really seems to have helped.