Environmentalists Want to Cut Down Trees?!

It wasn't until last night I realized that all of this week's posts, from four different bloggers including myself, focus on environmental issues. Until recently, I'll admit to thinking that environmental issues were a fad that would fade once the media tired. I'm not so sure anymore. In keeping with this theme, I'll offer today's post on a couple of heretical notions gaining ground.

This month’s issue of Wired carries the headline, “Attention Environmentalists: Keep Your SUV. Forget organics. Go Nuclear.Screw the spotted owl. If you're serious about global warming, only one thing matters: cutting carbon. That means facing some inconvenient truths." According to Wired:

Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released.

That means some of our sacred forests may need to come down?

Add to this the notion that, while a Prius is the car favored by greenies everywhere, you would probably be doing more for the environment by buying a used car.

I’m not at all qualified to analyze the validity of these new positions but would welcome informed perspectives from those willing to share. As one who always loves the rabble-rouser -- and who has become obsessed with reducing, reusing and recycling -- I’ll simply admit to being intrigued.

Susan Herr