They are going to plant 2 billion trees....

[chuckChuck]

Can you please try to keep consistent in your narrative.

A while back I pointed out the preposterous scheme in the UK where they converted a coal power plant to burn wood, then imported the trees from North America where we clear cut forests for them. All done because, by some warped logic burning trees is considered not to release any CO2. Of course, you defended the practice since trees don't store CO2, except temporarily.

Now you claim that planting trees is a good way to capture more carbon ( please try to use the proper chemical nomenclature, CO2, carbon is black sooty pollution, CO2 is a colorless, odorless, beneficial gas).

I realize you must agree with this latest scheme because Mr. Dressup supports it, but the hypocrisy really erodes what shreds of credibility you may have left.

Are you sure you studied engineering because you seem to know phuck all!

"Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Carbon's abundance, its unique diversity of organic compounds, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth enables this element to serve as a common element of all known life. It is the second most abundant element in the human body by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.[16]"

"Properties of carbon.
Carbon is represented by the symbol ‘C’ and is the 6th element in the periodic table of elements, with an atomic number of 6 and an atomic mass of 12.001. It is a non-metal and the fourth most abundant element in our solar system, only surpassed by hydrogen, helium and oxygen. Carbon can take the form of coal, charcoal, and diamonds, and also forms the major component of all living things including trees. At atmospheric pressure carbon occurs naturally as either a solid or a gas. The melting/sublimation point of carbon is the highest of all naturally occurring elements at 3550°C."

Only on Agriville would you find people who don't believe in protecting the environment and that don't think planting trees is a good idea.

[LEP]

Are you sure you studied engineering because you seem to know phuck all!

"Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Carbon's abundance, its unique diversity of organic compounds, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth enables this element to serve as a common element of all known life. It is the second most abundant element in the human body by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.[16]"

"Properties of carbon.
Carbon is represented by the symbol ‘C’ and is the 6th element in the periodic table of elements, with an atomic number of 6 and an atomic mass of 12.001. It is a non-metal and the fourth most abundant element in our solar system, only surpassed by hydrogen, helium and oxygen. Carbon can take the form of coal, charcoal, and diamonds, and also forms the major component of all living things including trees. At atmospheric pressure carbon occurs naturally as either a solid or a gas. The melting/sublimation point of carbon is the highest of all naturally occurring elements at 3550°C."

Only on Agriville would you find people who don't believe in protecting the environment and that don't think planting trees is a good idea.

I don't think he was saying that it was a bad idea. I think he was was pointing out your double talking hypocrisy.

[jazz]

Chuck are you playing with a full deck?. Atmspheric CO2 is the issue and it currently makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere.

You want to ban elemental carbon in the entire Universe?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I don't think he was saying that it was a bad idea. I think he was was pointing out your double talking hypocrisy.

Obviously Chuck doesn't see any hypocrisy in simultaneously "believing " that clear cutting forests, hauling them to another continent and burning them in a power plant, and planting trees are both going to reduce our collective CO2 emissions.

Just like he can't comprehend how forcing our energy intensive industries off shore with taxes and regulations will increase pollution and emissions worldwide. Myopic is the only word that comes to mind.

[chuckChuck]

You guys are a laugh. A5 thinks carbon is soot! Jazz thinks I want to ban all carbon. Wow!

The issue is too much CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (which contain lots of carbon) in the atmosphere which are causing global air and water temperatures to rise.

Forest, trees, grasslands, crops, soils and phytoplankton, are all carbon sinks (holders) which are part of the carbon cycle. More planted trees will hold more carbon.

[foragefarmer]

Not sure what all the noise is about on Agriville about planting 2 billion trees over ten years. On average B.C. plants 218 million each year. Do the math, B.C. is only one province in Canada!!!

China has replanted 35 billion trees since the 1990's

Have any of you looked at the river banks in your area, the erosion taking place from all the extra drainage from both rural and urban centers have taken it's toll. More trees along these waterways is the only solution.

Reforestation means more opportunity for the forest industry. Harvesting a crop sort of what we do for a living!


You guys were all tight lipped when Closet Boy and Ritz Cracker eliminated PFRA who provided many benefits for farmers!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck are you playing with a full deck?. Atmspheric CO2 is the issue and it currently makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere.

You want to ban elemental carbon in the entire Universe?

It is obvious by his persistent misuse of the word Carbon, that he can't differentiate between the molecule CO2, and the element Carbon. Imagine the look on his lucky bride-to-be's face when she opened the little box and saw the full carrot CO2 ring.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

More planted trees will hold more carbon.

Exactly, so why do you "believe" that burning those same trees will not release the same stored Carbon into the atmosphere as CO2? Does transporting that wood from one continent to another somehow negate that effect?

It seems that anything is possible if you just "believe in science" hard enough.

[jazz]

Forest, trees, grasslands, crops, soils and phytoplankton, are all carbon sinks (holders) which are part of the carbon cycle. More planted trees will hold more carbon.

Your are getting there chuck, slowly, very slowly. Fresh water stores as well.

Now if you can do a little math, please work out Canadas current CO2 balance. Tell us the answer when you get it.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Your are getting there chuck, slowly, very slowly. Fresh water stores as well.

Now if you can do a little math, please work out Canadas current CO2 balance. Tell us the answer when you get it.

Don't hold your breathe waiting for the answer, Jazz. Although that would save a lot of CO2 emissions.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So you think it is okay to do whatever you want your land even if it causes significant problems for your neighbors? Drainage is the best negative example.

Where would you stop with your idea of private property rights?

I'll ask you the same. Where do you draw the line on an individuals rights to solar resources? If your southern neighbor plants trees along your border, shading out your panels much of the year, whose property rights take precedence? Likewise, if your solar array is shading out your northern neighbors solar panels, garden, crops, or back yard, does the most self righteous get the priority use of that solar resource?

Now take it a step further, if I install a bunch of wind turbines, which affect not only the wind resources of my down wind neighbors, but also the solar resources, with the large shadow. Do I owe him/her compensation for the lost resources?

Closer to home, all my non-farming neighbors just love to plant trees everywhere(the ultimate disrespect to the hard work of our ancestors who cleared and broke this country), I can easily write off the first 50 feet of crop or hay on the north side of trees, nearly as bad east and west, does their property right to plant trees that take my solar energy, water and nutrients, take precedence over my right to make a living off my land? That is 4 acres per half mile fenceline. $12 to $16000 at current values.

[blackpowder]

"Individual property rights are given to you by governments"


Yes, and our constitution barely does that if at all.
Sad that the 'right' to individual property isn't recognized as such but as a'gift'.
God bless the government. Giver of life and all things good.


Trees are great. Where they belong.

[biglentil]

"Individual property rights are given to you by governments"


Yes, and our constitution barely does that if at all.
Sad that the 'right' to individual property isn't recognized as such but as a'gift'.
God bless the government. Giver of life and all things good.


Trees are great. Where they belong.

You do not own land you hold it fee simple of the Crown. Die without a will or heirs and the land reverts to the Crown.

[blackpowder]

Wonder what it would look like today had we properly punted the Crown 200 years ago?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck's comment about how he views private property rights, as a gift we are temporarily allowed ( and likely mistakenly permitted, requiring drastic measures such as a climate emergency to rectify), are really just an extension of his previous career where he supported the concept that the government actually owns all of a farmers production, and they generously shared a small portion with the actual producers. With the demise of the CWB, he has had to move on to bigger and better plots to overthrow capitalism.