Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Saskatchewan v. Canada (Carbon Tax)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DJR View Post

    Lots of interesting twists in the CT file. Most oil companies support it. Massive amounts of work done to bury that fact. In fairness I doubt that the oil sands producers support it as they are the biggest offenders, therefor the biggest target.
    The biggest supporter seems to be CNRL, an integrated oil sands producer. I think for them, its just a measure of certainty. They can pay this thing, budget for it for next year, and be done with it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pappcam View Post

      Lol. Straight from the annals of Facebook.
      Yep. From fb to rf, one gospel to another.
      No teacher, cake are square, pie are round.

      Comment


      • Probably one of the most interesting RF posts the last few pages, and on a typically heated topic no less. Congratulations posters!

        I was going to start a thread about Trump pardoning Conrad Black...doh!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by squish View Post

          Ok, so first of all, its not an opinion. Think of the forest as a sink. A big ol sink, with a drain at the top and a tap spilling into it. The sink is full to the point where new water into the sink, displaces other water which falls down the drain. Thats how a carbon sink (like a forest) acts. It holds a certain amount of CO2, always has, but as trees die, more new ones grow, and the amount of CO2 in the forest remains the same. Always has been the same, since long before mankind was expelling CO2. The forest sink has always been full, no more will fit in.

          Now if we cut down the forests, or there are larger forest fires, the sink gets a bit smaller, and can hold less CO2. Conversely, if we reforest more land, the sink gets bigger and can offset more. Which is really the only way to have our forests "count" as being able to sequester new carbon.

          Hope that helped.
          I realized you very briefly touched on this a bit in a follow up post about swamps, but the above boded somewhat works as a simple analogy but is not really true and I think you downplayed the amount of carbon that historically has not decomposed in the boreal forests. Since deglaciation the forest sink and the amount of carbon held in it has been increasing in because given the climate of the Canadian boreal and subarctic region the plant material (carbon) does not fully decompose and instead accumulates as peat (sometimes up to 4-5m thick). Some estimates put the amount of carbon held in peatlands as twice that held in the living component of the forests (globally). So essentially the size of the sink in your analogy has been increasing over the last 11,000 years.

          What exactly happens to that carbon going forward in a warming climate is an interesting discussion, that causes significant concern to some as a major positive feedback system to climate change.

          Comment

          Announcement

          Collapse
          No announcement yet.

          Announcement

          Collapse
          No announcement yet.
          Working...
          X