rikyuu Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I was thinking about this carbon tax and thinking that Oz is a large country with huge forests and a small population. Surely all the trees absorb a lot of our CO2 emissions compared with other countries. So I dug out some information off the net to find out for some countries; the land mass, % of land covered by trees, total area of trees, total number of trees (assumed an average spacing of 20m), CO2 emissions per year, how much CO2 each tree absorbs per year and hence finally calculated the % of CO2 produced which is reabsorbed by the trees. (This is apparently more for mature trees, which I expect there are more of in Australias forests than forests in the UK for example. Results are below Country %CO2 absorbed by trees US 1.38% Germany 0.33% UK 0.12% Australia 12.3% So, as Australia has been careful to preserve its forests instead of cutting them all down and concreting over them like the US and the UK, we still have forests to absorb 100 times more of the CO2 we produce than the UK for example and many more times the other countries here. So are we justified in having such a harsh carbon tax compared to other countries. Has the amount we absorb with our carefully preserved forests been taken into account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sh7t man no way Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 i dont think its a tree thing in oz--its more to do with most of the power stations are fueled by coal in oz,and where built 30-50 years ago when this problem of carbon emmision wus less in the public media,and they wuz built to lesser standards than required in the year 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourcorners Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 What about the other 87.7% then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hatton Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I was thinking about this carbon tax and thinking that Oz is a large country with huge forests and a small population. Surely all the trees absorb a lot of our CO2 emissions compared with other countries.So I dug out some information off the net to find out for some countries; the land mass, % of land covered by trees, total area of trees, total number of trees (assumed an average spacing of 20m), CO2 emissions per year, how much CO2 each tree absorbs per year and hence finally calculated the % of CO2 produced which is reabsorbed by the trees. (This is apparently more for mature trees, which I expect there are more of in Australias forests than forests in the UK for example. Results are below Country %CO2 absorbed by trees US 1.38% Germany 0.33% UK 0.12% Australia 12.3% So, as Australia has been careful to preserve its forests instead of cutting them all down and concreting over them like the US and the UK, we still have forests to absorb 100 times more of the CO2 we produce than the UK for example and many more times the other countries here. So are we justified in having such a harsh carbon tax compared to other countries. Has the amount we absorb with our carefully preserved forests been taken into account? Australians create more carbon pollution per person that almost all other Countries in the world so I suppose taht balances it a bit.:wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tisme Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Carbon dioxide is NOT classed as a pollutant, it's a greenhouse gas. We ALL breath out carbon dioxide Trees tend to negate their absortion of co2 by generating it through decomposition. Carbon tax is a tax on the emmisions of carbon dioxide only, NOT on the harmful pollution you see coming out of stacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The CO2 has to be sequestered by trees over climate timescales, so there has to be an increase in organic material that hangs around for decades for it to 'count' for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. This might happen by having an increase in size of trees, density of trees or having more land turned to forest. Changes in soil type are also hugely important, so a mature forest with deep, carbon-rich soil is better at keeping in CO2 than a new one. An example that wouldn't count would be a leaf growing on a tree in spring (taking up CO2) before falling off in autumn and decomposing (emitting CO2). Forests should definitely be taken into account when looking at Australia's carbon emissions, but really it's only changes in the amount of organic material (carbon) in the forests that has an impact over climate timescales. So although Australia has more forests and hence organic material, that doesn't really matter for their CO2 emissions. Only changes in the amount of organic material sequestered would matter. If it were to be reduced then that should count as a CO2 emission, while if it were increased then that should count as a CO2 drawdown. Merely having more forests doesn't mean that more fossil-fuel-CO2 will be taken up over climate timescales. Out of interest, where did you get the data on forests? I'd be interested to have a look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleabo Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Australia also has a lot of cows that fart a lot of methane. Its not good:no:... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hatton Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Australia also has a lot of cows that fart a lot of methane. Its not good:no:... Australia has a lot of men who fart out methane :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleabo Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I've been disrespectful to the humble cow - it burbs out the methane, not farts it out. And Australian cattle only contributes to about 0.6% of the world methane output to the atmosphere.:embarrassed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.