Ok now, Im not quite sure about this, but if you cut down a tree, let it dry, then burn it, your creating smoke, carbon dioxide, heat, and half burnt wood/ash stuffs. Now, if you take the left-overs, and throw them in the dirt, your providing nutrients to the soil. Water vapors collect onto the smoke particles(from the wood you burnt), and form rain droplets. These droplets fall onto the now nourished soil... A seed comes along, and flourishes in the water and good soil. Assuming that you are'nt doing anything too extreme, would'nt this actually be very good for the enviroment? Any carbon-dioxide you create is cleaned out by the new tree, right? does this make sense to anyone?
I guess it makes sense... but only in certain scenarios. I don't see why you would burn a tree unless you actually needed the energy - and, if that were the case, it depends on how many trees you burn. It takes a lot longer to grow a tree then to burn one. The amount of CO2 you emit while burning may not be absorbed by your "replacement" for another 50-100 years. Either way - sustainability will only work if you use what you need and replace what you take. If either is out of balance, it's not sustainable. with love, kayatree
seems to me, long as you do things out of a true need, you might be alright. wants seem to get us in trouble
PRO: http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/fires/healthyforests_initiative.asp CON: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/toc.html Sierra holds your theory of let them burn, it’s natural. Thousands of lawyers litigate daily to allow forest to burn naturally, like the wild fires over the last few years. On the CON, don’t let them burn with houses and timber harvest that could prevent forest fires, the government enacted law to allow thinning of timber and underbrush to prevent wildfires. The wild fires closed down many forest to visitors over the last few years and put too much smoke in the environment. Reasonable management of forest protects the trees and the animals, which make their habitat there in my mind. Changeyourlatitude
A controlled burn of an overgrown forest will encourage new stronger growth. But there are many trade offs, such as pollution, temporary destruction of habitat, etc. I don't have much problem with controlled burns in new growth forests, but I have very strong feelings against the entire cut/slash/burn of giant swaths of rainforest, or any destruction of old growth forests. If a tree took 500-1000 years to grow, that tree should be as untouchable as any monument of civilization would be.
Things should be cut....but not burned all the time as rotting wood is an essential habitat for minibeests....food supply and home for wood peckers bla bla bla. Basically an essential part of the eco system In the UK a lot of our bugs are declining cos of neatness freaks insisting on tidying up any woodlands and removing all fallen trees which is bloody daft.......
Actually the management of forest does not do as much damage as a fire, which destroys habitat. There are enough dead limbs in a managed forest to allow woodpeckers and the bugs they feed on to make it. Fallen dead trees are consumed by termites and microorganisms, which exist in all topsoil. Neither have predators and again enough fallen debris exist even in a managed forest to support such species. Forest fires causes erosion and destroys habitat as does clear cutting, clear cutting is not forest management. Forest management may be compared to domestic pet or animal management. It is nature living with people. Changeyourlatitude
I think burning of is essential in the case of homes and lives being lost by fires. We burn off on out property, in spring/autumn every few years to reduce the fire hazard, the cycads and gum trees go mad, there are acacia seedlings everywhere and it creates new habitats. But the ash will lower the PH of the soil.
I say we let them burn without our help. Even if they are close to houses and what-not. There's no reason for us to be burning trees.
