I have seen no journalistic criticism of this scheme so far, but
there seems to me that there is something false. Do trees really
absorb more CO2 than the grass they replace? I think the annual
dry-matter productivity is similar.
Of course trees lock up the CO2 for a while, but when the trees are
cut 20 years later, they will revert to CO2 eventually, either
through burning or decay. In the meantime all that natural gas will
have been mined and burned to increase world CO2 levels.
It would not surprise me if the same tactics were soon to be used in
other countries to claim credit for CO2 reduction, while not
actually doing so.
Maybe my calculations are wrong. Any comments?
************************
Rod McDonald
Engineer/scientist
Horticulture and Food Research Institute,
Hamilton, New Zealand
Phone +64-7-8385675 work, +64-7-8552019 home, Fax +64-7-8385655
************************