03-07-2008, 07:11 AM
Hi April, don't worry, I'm pretty thick skinned.
I think the best source of very compelling arguments against clearing of any sort come from modern Earth Systems Science school of thought, most notably from James Lovelock and like thinkers. The problem with clearing, especially in the rainforest, is that we have a tendency to think in terms of area(ie, acres) of loss of carbon pumping capacity, not in terms of volume, which is more accurately the case. For example, an 100 by 100 patch of rainforest is really a sponge absorbing co2 nearly 100 feet high as well, when one includes the canopy, vines etc. So, really, when you lose that roughly 1 million cubic feet of plant life, it will take a patch of grassland or farmland 1000 feet on a side to remove the same level of co2, roughly assuming an average depth of planted crops of a 1.5 feet or so. Obvious off the cuff estimate, but I'm sure you get the point. The issue is that any developed land, even farmland, is vastly less effective at maintaining climate than native forest, and the loss of it is very very difficult to replace. Does that make sense? It becomes especially dangerous in areas, like Puna, where the rainfall conveyance is heavily dependent on the stability of the adiabatic lapse rate--or the rate of cooling of hot air as it rises from a warm surface. Hot flat surfaces make air rise more quickly, where deep dense surfaces retain cooler air longer through the day. This matters in cumulus cloud formation--as we see in Puna, as the rain clouds form and march up the hill. If the lapse rate gets too low, as air rises too fast, the rain simply punches up into the trade winds up high and gets blown away. This is a real threat to the Hawaiian climate that we don't take seriously enough, but is a threat anywhere.
Trees really are the key. This is why when we see native forest cut down to raise biofuels we should scream bloody murder. I find myself running amok here in Hawaii of the eco-crowd who's all worried about invasive plants and is all fired up about chopping down all the eucalyptus, etc. We're way past that point, in much more dire circumstances, and everything green, native or not is precious.
Hows that for starts?
I think the best source of very compelling arguments against clearing of any sort come from modern Earth Systems Science school of thought, most notably from James Lovelock and like thinkers. The problem with clearing, especially in the rainforest, is that we have a tendency to think in terms of area(ie, acres) of loss of carbon pumping capacity, not in terms of volume, which is more accurately the case. For example, an 100 by 100 patch of rainforest is really a sponge absorbing co2 nearly 100 feet high as well, when one includes the canopy, vines etc. So, really, when you lose that roughly 1 million cubic feet of plant life, it will take a patch of grassland or farmland 1000 feet on a side to remove the same level of co2, roughly assuming an average depth of planted crops of a 1.5 feet or so. Obvious off the cuff estimate, but I'm sure you get the point. The issue is that any developed land, even farmland, is vastly less effective at maintaining climate than native forest, and the loss of it is very very difficult to replace. Does that make sense? It becomes especially dangerous in areas, like Puna, where the rainfall conveyance is heavily dependent on the stability of the adiabatic lapse rate--or the rate of cooling of hot air as it rises from a warm surface. Hot flat surfaces make air rise more quickly, where deep dense surfaces retain cooler air longer through the day. This matters in cumulus cloud formation--as we see in Puna, as the rain clouds form and march up the hill. If the lapse rate gets too low, as air rises too fast, the rain simply punches up into the trade winds up high and gets blown away. This is a real threat to the Hawaiian climate that we don't take seriously enough, but is a threat anywhere.
Trees really are the key. This is why when we see native forest cut down to raise biofuels we should scream bloody murder. I find myself running amok here in Hawaii of the eco-crowd who's all worried about invasive plants and is all fired up about chopping down all the eucalyptus, etc. We're way past that point, in much more dire circumstances, and everything green, native or not is precious.
Hows that for starts?