🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:09:40 +1000, "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@removeozdebate.com>
wrote:

>
>"Robert" <RB@..> wrote in message 
>news:619u23d54lhtc02g4ee3r1o5mr2pofob3r@4ax.com...
>> BURNING FACTS
>>
>> Many people are concerned about climate change but most are a bit 
>> mystified as
>> to how Australia stands. Here are some facts and figures.
>>
>> Australia burns about 120 million tonnes of fossil fuels per year, 
>> producing
>> some 300 million tonnes of CO2. Australia also burns over one million 
>> hectares
>> of bush each year, releasing 150 million tonnes of CO2 or 30% of its total 
>> CO2
>> output.
>
>Which the Aborigines were doing long before white men arrived........

Well let the abos run the forest, pyro, if they're so good at it..

>> Last summer's bushfires produced considerably more greenhouse gases
>> than Australia's normal yearly output from all other sources.
>
>So?
>
>> The current S.E. 'hazard reduction' burn, involving some 60000 hectares of 
>> SE
>> forests, will convert well over one million tonnes of forest litter into 
>> three
>> million tonnes of CO2 and one million tonnes of water vapour....equivalent 
>> to
>> three days of Australia's total fossil usage and about six times the 
>> yearly
>> output of all SE residents and tourists.
>
>And it will burn anyway. Whether people burn it in a controlled way, or 
>mother nature does it in an uncontrolled way - they result is the same.
>
>>
>> When burned, one tonne of dry forest litter produces 5000 KwH of heat 
>> energy or
>> about half as much as does the same weight of petrol. The current program 
>> will
>> release over five billion Kwh of heat into the atmosphere, worth some $600
>> million retail. That's enough to power Eurobodalla for about four years or 
>> keep
>> the whole of Canberra warm over winter...and it's literally all going up 
>> in
>> smoke...as well as in our eyes, up our noses and down our lungs. This is 
>> most
>> unfortunate to say the least.
>
>The only 'unfortunate' thing about it is that you obviously don't have a 
>fucking clue.
>
>> We live in an energy hungry world and cannot afford to simply burn this
>> valuable material as though there is an infinite supply. There isn't...and 
>> when
>> oil and coal become scarce we'll certainly have to harness every form of 
>> energy
>> we can.
>
>ROFL. I don't know what planet you live on, but here on earth plants GROW. 
>They are a renewable resource you fucking moron.
>
>>
>> There's an element of pyromania in all of us since fire was always 
>> associated
>> with warmth, food, good times and security. It isn't surprising therefore 
>> that
>> the age-old myth about forests requiring regular burning has attracted a 
>> large
>> cult following of those with a psychological or financial interest in 
>> seeing
>> things burn. The well-organised pro-fire lobby has now amassed such a vast
>> collection of so called 'scientific evidence' to support their obsession 
>> that
>> no politician or group of citizens has the ability or courage to stand up 
>> to
>> them and question their motives.
>>
>> In reality, although new green shoots look most impressive against a 
>> blackened
>> background, fire spells almost total disaster for a forest.
>
>Utter bullshit.
>My almost destroyed by the Ash Wednesday fires. Looking at it now, other 
>than a few black trunks on (living) trees, you wouldn't even know.

A brainless idiot like you wouldn't know but a trained eye would.

>> Often a completely
>> new ecosystem emerges from the ashes, complete with weeds, flammable 
>> shrubs and
>> exotic flora and fauna. Not only are huge amounts of heat and CO2 pumped 
>> into
>> the atmosphere but also enough particulate matter to considerably reduce 
>> the
>> chances of rain. Not only does it destroy the material that protects the 
>> earth
>> and supplies the forest with nutrients but also it wipes out the countless
>> millions of essential creatures that would normally compost that litter 
>> into
>> fertile topsoil. Because plants need hundreds of times their own weight of
>> water to grow, an extra metre or so of rain is required just to restore a 
>> burnt
>> forest to its previous condition.
>
>Which is why controlled burns are the way to go. They are usually limited to 
>vegetation below the tree canopy and do not generate enough heat to 
>penetrate far into the earth.

Fuck off, pyro.

>> We all know that hot bush fires are to be avoided wherever possible and we 
>> all
>> respect the work of our essential fire crews. However one must seriously
>> question whether regular hazard reduction burns are either effective or 
>> wise.
>> They wipe out both the engine room of the forest and the fuel that is 
>> supposed
>> to make it run well into the future. Surely, in today's climate, there are 
>> more
>> constructive and less polluting uses for this valuable commodity.
>>
>> Here are some suggestions. Firstly, call on research bodies to devise 
>> efficient
>> ways to collect surplus material. (Remember its heat content is 
>> potentially
>> worth about $500 per tonne retail). Then:
>>
>> Turn it into ethanol or gas for use as fuel.
>> Make brickettes out of it and use it for all kinds of heating.
>> Use it to heat water, which can be transported into townships and sold.
>> Burn it cleanly to generate electricity.
>> Use it for space heating of large buildings.
>> And note: The litter on a one-hectare block would easily run a steam car 
>> for a
>> year.
>>
>> ......So who wants to become a billionaire?????
>
>Fuck off, idiot.

fuck off pyro.