"Green Living"

[Les C]

I believe that many of the programs to remove invasives are coupled with an effort to replant and replace with natives. So, it's not just a removal of biomass, but a replacement. Other aspects to consider are the native species that depend on the native vegetation to survive. And, in turn, the native vegetation depends on the native species to pollinate and provide other necessary requirement for the plants' survival. The "eco-folks", as you put it, aren't all narrow-minded about what they promote. Ecology is about how things interact, systems that need other systems. If people are disregarding this, then they are misguided.

Now, I may refer to things in generalizations, in fact, I don't really know how many programs are replacing invasives with natives. By the same token, I believe that some folks are wont to make generalizations about what "eco-folks" want, or who they are.

[JWFITZ]

Good morning,

Sorry, I don't want to sting anybody with the "eco-crowd" comment. Obviously by some definition I'm one of those. However, I think we can admit that among those who call themselves "environmentalists" there is a major component that is far more "fashion" driven than "evidence" driven, and certainly not science and data driven. This is very very dangerous--biofuels probably being the worst current example, but millions of people have died of malaria this world because passionate but uninformed urbanites decided to blanket ban DTT, now finally a bad lifted. My point is that we haven't the luxury of dogmatism, dumb ideas kill people: and I'd like to see an effort to get after dogmatic ideas, or we're going to end up with a homeopathic cure for climate change.

Right now we're simply marching to burn forest, under an ecological pretext.

James however is dead right about one thing: Hawaii imports 90 percent of its food. This is absurd and must change! Still, I'm sure that a stand of non-native trees does a much better job of climate preservation than any cropland can, and we should move with the utmost of caution.

I think a place to start, rather than clearing would be here. Since much of the development in Puna has been on land zoned AG, by the letter of the law one isn't supposed to live there unless the land is used for food production. If, one was REQUIRED to produce a food crop of a certain value to keep the residence--say 1000 dollars an acre annually, we'd fix our food problem and provide opportunity for thousands of jobs, we'd have entrenched local agriculture, and we'd have food falling out of our ears. Most importantly, we'd have a population that simply couldn't live in a utter vacuum of knowledge about what it takes to get food to the grocery store. Legal precedents exist for mandatory crops especially during wartime. It's not that far out, really, and this sort of idea would fix a lot. And it doesn't involve any clearing.

Just a wild ass suggestion demonstrating a different way to think.

[aprild]

What continues to amaze me is that no one addresses the root problem any more: rampant world population growth. Forty years ago one read about Zero Population Growth everywhere. Editorials in small town newspapers were written about it. What the heck happened?

It seems that everyone has adopted the attitudes of the Right -- we need more consumers, we need people to support social security and medicare, we demonize abortion under all circumstances and even other birth control, growth is good. Money sets the tone for all political and environmental discourse at levels where it really matters: at the levels where a difference can be made--the highest levels of power.

I am not talking about any posters on Punaweb per se, just conventional thought in general. So no attacks, please.

Every time a Republican administration enters office, the first thing they do is curtail the availability of birth control of any kind to Third World countries. This has been happening for decades.

Anyone who takes offense to my reference to political orientation: I am only speaking the truth here, thus it should cause no ire. And this subject is nothing, if not political.

Meanwhile I am recylcing, driving seldom, hardly ever taking a plane and use very little energy and have done this all for my entire adult life. In the grand scheme of things don't you sincerely think we need to quit blowing things up in Iraq? And shipping tanks, weapons and personnel across the world? How about factories belching CO2 and contaminants here and in China? How about consumerism?

Help me, Rhonda.

Thanks, Jay, for the clear-cutting orientation. I need to make this fit a desert locale... I did some of it. I wonder how much CO2 a Joshua tree washes.

April

"When the world is winding down, make the best of what's still around." Sting

[JWFITZ]

Good Morning April,

A tree doesn't wash CO2, it makes it into wood, so the answer, unfortunately, is very little. And, unfortunately, as the carbon pumpdown is simply a function of growth rate, neither do many of the native Hawaiian trees, as they're just too slow growing. Koa is probably the big exception, and I plant two trees a month on my place, but the root-knot problem is growing for uncertain reasons and I've got no idea if they'll survive. So far, they grow great guns, and easy to start from seed. But even if they die, the impact of the Koa on the soil is fine enough, although I hate the stink of that symbiotic fungus.

I'm surprised no one has jumped to hold my feet to the fire yet, and someone should, so I'll do it myself in the spirit of not being a hypocrite. Where do you get off, Jay, telling people not to cut trees when you work primarily in wood? Huh? Well, that's a fair question, and I think the answer is illustrative, and I really should feel compelled to answer it. And I will.

First, I DON'T believe it's a crime to cut a tree. My Stihl MS260 is one of my favorite tools. I do, however, believe it's a crime to use any resource without due respect for the cost of it. For example, I'd say if you're going to cut a rare tree a 1000 years old, you'd better feel compelled to use it in the most careful manner possible, as it's more valuable than gold, and you'd better build the finest furniture out of it, in such a manner that it lasts a 1000 years. And that standard isn't impossible, and examples exist. But, far too often trees of that nature are cut just to make crap, pure crap that won't go ten years before a new interiour designer comes along and throws it in the trash.

And I'm trimming my house with dead standing ohia and strawberry guava. And very beautiful it is. There is no waste wood anymore. But, odd bits and irregular pieces take a much higher level of attention and craftsmanship to work with, and the average builder just wants to buy boards and pin-nail it all up. And rightly so, as it took me all day yesterday to mill up a dead ohia log into a 4/4 by 8" x 8' backsplash for my kitchen, and a yurtbuilder rates(sorry, couldn't resist) that's a 500 dollar piece of wood. Stunning it is, but I can buy the same sort of thing in "dead forest dejour" from the orient for 50 dollars.

So the problem I face, as none of this is theoretical to me at all, is this. I just built myself a very modest house. The softwood lumber in the structure is at this point more or less grown on private land in the Pacific Northwest any more, because on public land it's all cut down. Still, I want to in a real and meaningful manner make up for the loss of those trees I'm responsible for by planting them here on my property. I don't want this to be a break even proposition either, I want the world to be a BETTER place for the waste I make, not just as it is. As well, I heat with wood, I run my hot water heater off of wood, and I may cook with wood. The alternative is some sort of oil, and sure I use gasoline, but the goal is to ween myself off as fast as possible. Using electricity is no good, solar won't generate near the level of power to provide these tasks even with a 30000 investment in the array, but I can grow trees and wipe the slate clean. But what trees? Koa for firewood? Really? It's the only thing native that has the growth rate even close(and it isn't close). If I figure that the cabin lasts 100 years, I need to produce a level of 500 or so 2x6 x 8' pieces of lumber plus 5 kg of firewood a day to make this a real, meaningful break even proposition. Elsewise I'm just pretending--and the fact is, on three acres, if I intermix eucalyptus, I can pull it off. Otherwise, I can't see it pan out.

If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it, but I haven't yet met anyone who's trying near this hard. I'm sure there is, but that's the point of the conversation, to shake these people out. And again, why I wince when I hear well meaning biologists talking about riding around in helicopters surveying the expanse of invasive species in Hawaii. That 2 hour joyride cost the planet 10000 lbs of CO2, and we need some very very fast growing plants to suck all that up.

Anyway, thanks to any suggestions. As well, I'm well aware that I'm kind of a boorish hardcase by nature, and please believe I try to be sensitive to stepping on toes. I just want real answers, and in a timely manner. Sometimes you've got to squeeze hard to get the juice.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JWFITZ
...I'm surprised no one has jumped to hold my feet to the fire yet, and someone should, so I'll do it myself in the spirit of not being a hypocrite. Where do you get off, Jay, telling people not to cut trees when you work primarily in wood? Huh? Well, that's a fair question...

---

Fitz -

I don't have much problem with cutting down of invasive trees at all.

...surveys of rain forests carpeting the volcanoes Mauna Kea and Kilauea indicate that the native trees are thinning out as invasive trees such as tropical ash and firtree encroach on their habitat......

....... invasive species change the amount of carbon stored in ecosystems [rather than in our atmosphere]

...In other words, more carbon dioxide—a major greenhouse gas—could end up in the atmosphere instead of stored in the forests' natural "sink."

From this March 3, 2008 National Geographic article.





-------
Today in History
Wasp-like parasites are introduced to Hawai'i in an effort to fight the mango fruit fly discovered in the islands the previous year, 1947.

[aprild]

Jay,
heat your water with solar. You can go as simple as coiled black pipe and get more sophisticated from there. You will probably even have hot water on a cloudy day. What elevation are you? I also heat with wood which is one danged good reason I am trying my best to be in a warm climate for winter.

I have watched madrone--one of the best firewoods on the planet go from abundant to gone in 20 years where I live. Now people heat with fir and oak when they can get it. The timber companies are cutting and/or poisoning all the oaks in the hope their redwood will grow faster, larger, more. So what used to be abundant is no longer. Fir. Can you believe it? One of the worst firewoods on the planet.

As long as you've got the fire going you may as well cook with wood, too. But have you tried a solar oven? They are also easy to rig.

I dunno, I kind of think you should never cut down a 1000 year old tree. We won't see more of those. Nothing you could make could ever be as good as that tree.




april

[JWFITZ]

Hi all,

Well Damon, I would like to see the science behind that article, and hope it just isn't, again, regurgitating someone's opinion. If you drive up 11, where the eucalyptus grow, especially past Mt View, those are, sadly, some of the biggest strongest most intensive biomass sinks on this island. And they're less than a 100 years old. If you plant an ohia, in a 100 years, it's about 9 inches at the butt. The eucalyptus is 30. That's literally tonnes of carbon difference, and I think we should pay attention.

I'm not telling people to plant invasives--I'm simply saying don't vilify. They're alive, and in their own way precious. Some VERY precious simply because they're so muscular. If the climate of Hawaii changes like some think, they may well be the only thing that survives.

As well, it's lame in the extreme to vilify lumber that we have while tonnes and tonnes of it, imported from someone else's pillaged forest, are bought up so we build big ugly houses on clear cuts will ill concieved ohia collumns out front.

Hi April.

More or less I agree. Here in Polynesia the big trees were cut far before the haoles showed up to make the canoes of the kings. In the PNW, where I grew up, it was totally cut madcap, and since we white folk had chainsaws and spar poles we were better at it. When the raw log ban was lifted, all hell broke loose and even the economy was destroyed so a few fat families could make their money. And there is your story. In high school, in 1985, I could get a job at a mill in my home town that paid 11.50 to start. I doubt, if that mill existed, which it surely does not--you would start in 2008 at less money.

No reason to cut 1000 year old tree? Maybe, and mostly because their seed has got to be ridiculously valuable, but sometimes they die. Besides, a 1000 year old fir tree, one of my favorite woods and one of the best building woods in the world, could provide lumber for a village of craftsmen for several years. But hell, let's make crap and arsewipe out of it. And no joke, they did.

I'm building the interior trim for my cabin out of an ohia tree, on my lot, that got the blight and died not too long ago, as the termites haven't started yet. It's nearly 24 inches at the butt, and clear at that for nearly 28 feet. That tree alone is worth 4 grand, in the right hands, in lumber, and it's choice.

It sure isn't easy, and there isn't a ideal answer, but there may well be an BEST answer, and that's what I'm shooting for.

[JWFITZ]

Oh, and solar heating of water, which I'm very familiar with is only about a 10 percent solution, as we have frequent cloud cover. I'm at 2700 feet, and 40 degrees at night is pretty typical. I have an electric(?!!?) hot water heater that I cycle the wood stove through, or will, when I get to it. I build wind generators, and when the trades blow they'll make the juice I need. Solar just isn't very good here, and hardly keeps the LED lamps at my gate alive. Besides, a 1 KW array will cost you about 15000 bucks, and at 50 cents a KWH will take 10 - 15 years to reclaim. That's a lot for unreliable power, and from November 1 to March 1 you won't get a stich of power. My gas generator, which I run to power my big tools, does even better than that, and sadly it just doesn't add up. I added it up. Gas would have to be 25 bucks a gallon before it paid to go PVA.

As for the grid? It's all petrol anyhow and 3000 bucks just for the pole. Obviously they don't want the customers.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JWFITZ

Hi all,

Well Damon, I would like to see the science behind that article....

---

Findings of the study have been published in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences.

The team, led by Gregory Asner, used remote sensing aboard the Carnegie Airborne Observatory (CAO) to survey the impact of invasive trees on more than 850 square miles of rainforest in Hawaii

-------
Today in History
Wasp-like parasites are introduced to Hawai'i in an effort to fight the mango fruit fly discovered in the islands the previous year, 1947.

[JWFITZ]

Ok, got that and read the link, but really couldn't get any more info.

The point of the article as I read it, and maybe I'm stupid, is that the invasive trees compete with the "slow growing" ohia and change the ecosystem. That's not my point, and I don't dispute that, as it's obvious. My question, rather, is whether the invasive tree species are or not better CO2 sinks than the native trees, and in that context, are perhaps more valuable than we expect. And this, as I see, the article doesn't address, and the scientists involved frankly don't see as an issue. Myopic science, as I see it.

Any other takes on the issue? I want, and NEED, and answer, and things are suddenly very silent.