Tree devastation in Sheffield

[AlexAtkin 10]

Humans are nothing more than a portable reservoir, at least by THAT logic.

 

If we start factoring in the environment then we emit greenhouse gases from both ends, the trees absorb those and produce oxygen.

 

So it really doesn't matter if they are sentient or not, we NEED them if we want to continue to breathe.

 

Replacing them with younger trees is no solution, as they will have nowhere near the same capacity for many many years. Then you factor in that unless they plan to treat the older trees and use them for building, their decomposing will ALSO release all that carbon they absorbed over the years back into the atmosphere. There should be WAY more care before cutting down any trees.

Edited July 15, 2015 by AlexAtkin

[cgksheff 44]

Roadside trees are only a small proportion of the total tree population of Sheffield.

 

The carbon capture of young growing trees far exceeds that of mature older trees.

It is when you look at removal of pollutants that the larger tree comes into its own along with providing food & cover for other species.

 

All urban trees have to be managed, cut down and replaced eventually.

 

All removals are authorised by council arboricultural officers.

[Lotusflower 10]

Roadside trees are only a small proportion of the total tree population of Sheffield.

 

The carbon capture of young growing trees far exceeds that of mature older trees.

It is when you look at removal of pollutants that the larger tree comes into its own along with providing food & cover for other species.

 

All urban trees have to be managed, cut down and replaced eventually.

 

All removals are authorised by council arboricultural officers.

 

Re my bold.

 

That is very much a moot point! It's certainly the view of the council's "experts" as stated in a council meeting by Terry Fox.

 

http://oldvsyounggrowthforestasoffset.weebly.com/why-is-it-controversial.html

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/15/science/la-sci-sn-old-trees-carbon-capture-20140115

 

http://inhabitat.com/scientists-discover-older-trees-are-better-at-absorbing-carbon/

 

I would be interested to see your evidence for what you assert.

[cgksheff 44]

How does a tree capture carbon?

By converting CO2 into cellulose.

 

Which tree creates more cellulose?

The younger growing tree or the old mature tree?

 

Once that tree has reached maturity it is capturing relatively little new carbon.

It is a carbon store, and has many other valuable contributions, but active carbon capture is a young trees job.

 

And don't forget that carbon capture by trees is only worthwhile if the wood is never allowed to decay or be burnt (without scrubbing).

Edited July 15, 2015 by cgksheff

[Eater Sundae 12]

How does a tree capture carbon?

By converting CO2 into cellulose.

 

Which tree creates more cellulose?

The younger growing tree or the old mature tree?

 

Once that tree has reached maturity it is capturing relatively little new carbon.

It is a carbon store, and has many other valuable contributions, but active carbon capture is a young trees job.

 

And don't forget that carbon capture by trees is only worthwhile if the wood is never allowed to decay or be burnt (without scrubbing).

 

So, in the whole scheme of things, stuff growing, dying and decaying is carbon neutral as far as the atmosphere is concerned.

[Lotusflower 10]

How does a tree capture carbon?

By converting CO2 into cellulose.

 

Which tree creates more cellulose?

The younger growing tree or the old mature tree?

 

Once that tree has reached maturity it is capturing relatively little new carbon.

It is a carbon store, and has many other valuable contributions, but active carbon capture is a young trees job.

 

And don't forget that carbon capture by trees is only worthwhile if the wood is never allowed to decay or be burnt (without scrubbing).

 

It's safe to assume then that you paid little heed to any of the links I provided.

 

I asked you for evidence to back up your statements and all you've done is provide more statements.

[cgksheff 44]

It's safe to assume then that you paid little heed to any of the links I provided.

 

I asked you for evidence to back up your statements and all you've done is provide more statements.

 

How arrogant of you. Not your usual manner.

 

I have read the articles, thank you. I have been familiar with one of them and other work by the authors prior to this thread.

Neither of them contradict my statements of fact.

 

The first article makes comparisons regarding the the relative values of replacing old forest with new for carbon sequestration purposes.

A lot of the argument against this is the effects of large scale operations, disturbance to the forest floor, ecosystems and use of machinery etc.

 

It does not contradict the statements at a single tree level.

 

The second and third are both referring to a single research paper. Which talks about larger, growing trees capturing more carbon than smaller, growing trees. Fairly self evident and does not contradict the fact that a mature old tree slows down in terms of growth and reaches a point where it is better to be replaced if carbon capture is your objective.

[Lotusflower 10]

How arrogant of you. Not your usual manner.

 

I have read the articles, thank you. I have been familiar with one of them and other work by the authors prior to this thread.

Neither of them contradict my statements of fact.

 

The first article makes comparisons regarding the the relative values of replacing old forest with new for carbon sequestration purposes.

A lot of the argument against this is the effects of large scale operations, disturbance to the forest floor, ecosystems and use of machinery etc.

 

It does not contradict the statements at a single tree level.

 

The second and third are both referring to a single research paper. Which talks about larger, growing trees capturing more carbon than smaller, growing trees. Fairly self evident and does not contradict the fact that a mature old tree slows down in terms of growth and reaches a point where it is better to be replaced if carbon capture is your objective.

 

I had no intention at all to come across as arrogant and I'm sorry you feel that way.

I could not understand why you are continuing to make that one sweeping statement regarding the relative merits of young trees against old trees and carbon capture.

[wibbles 10]

...............

[tonk 10]

So, in the whole scheme of things, stuff growing, dying and decaying is carbon neutral as far as the atmosphere is concerned.

 

I dont think the atmosphere is concerned at all! Why do you need to personify it?? its just a big mass of gas.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

I dont think the atmosphere is concerned at all! Why do you need to personify it?? its just a big mass of gas.

...as is much of the arboriphilia on this thread.

[Lotusflower 10]

...as is much of the arboriphilia on this thread.

 

Is it like Muffin the Mule?

You're the lawyer Jeffrey...is it even legal?

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 20:05 ----------

 

A new petition has just been published for anyone wanting to add their signature.

 

https://www.change.org/p/councillor-terry-fox-at-sheffield-city-council-we-the-undersigned-call-upon-sheffield-city-council-to-take-immediate-steps-to-adopt-a-comprehensive-tree-strategy-policy-in-line-with-many-other-councils-nationwide