Carbon neutrality question for coal vs. wood

Why is wood considered to be carbon-neutral (and thereby green), while coal (which comes from wood or other plant or cellulose derived sources) is not considered to be likewise carbon-neutral?

Because new wood collects and stores CO2. For example if you had enough acreage you could have an infinite amount of fuel and CO2 storage. As you're burning wood new growth is recapturing that CO2, it's an infinite loop.

But if you assume that the plant matter which eventually became coal was similarly eventually replaced by new plant matter, if the carbon cycle is observed over a large enough time frame, wouldn't coal also be a CO2 wash (I.E., neutral)?

Distribution of elements in the human body (by weight) %

element atomic number percentage role
oxygen 8 65.0 cellular respiration, component of water
carbon 6 18.5 basis of organic molecules
hydrogen 1 9.5 component of water and most organic molecules, electron carrier
nitrogen 7 3.3 component of all proteins and nucleic acids
calcium 20 1.5 component of bones and teeth, triggers muscle contraction
phosphorus 15 1.0 component of nucleic acids, important in energy transfer
potassium 19 0.4 min positive ion inside cells, important in nerve function
sulfur 16 0.3 component of most proteins
sodium 11 0.2 main positive ion outside cells, important in nerve function
chlorine 17 0.2 main negative ion outside cells
magnesium 12 0.1 essential component of many energy-transferring enzymes
iron 26 trace essential component of hemoglobin in the blood
copper 29 trace component of many enzymes
molybdenum 42 trace component of many enzymes
zinc 30 trace component of some enzymes
iodine 53 trace component of thyroid hormone

18.5% shall be by decree your new income tax rate INCREASE, report to the nearest Carbon Temple and make remittance.

My cousin is a certified tree huggin greenie. She is a good egg though. She BELIEVES global climate change IS a result of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere from man burning carbon based fuels that have been sequestered deep in the earth for millions of years. She thinks I'm misguided and visa versa. Carbon locked in compounds deep in the earth (coal, oil, natural gas, peat) are in what she calls the Long cycle, which can be millions of years. The carbon has been taken out of the atmosphere locked away. The Short carbon cycle would be less than a hundred years. That would be current pant growth that grows locking up carbon, dies and is burned, eaten or decomposes, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere in a steady state.

I believe the earth has much greater forces at work that change the climate. Ocean current cycles, sun spot cycles, volcanic activity putting dust and gases into the atmosphere to name a few. Natural gas industry leaks, methane from rotting plant materials and water vapor (especially water vapor) are "greenhouse gases" that have a much greater effect on the earth than CO2, most of which is completely out of mans control. We need to adapt to changing weather patterns or perish. I believe it is foolish to think man can "control" the earth's climate and the people behind the green movement have a political agenda that has little to due with climate and a lot to do with control over the resources and money of the world. I am not saying anything bad about people who believe in a clean environment but anything can be taken to extremes and well meaning people are being used to further a hidden dark agenda.

What is the CORRECT amount of carbon dioxide for the Earth?

Current calculations are = 0.039% !!!!!

cokehead wrote:My cousin is a certified tree huggin greenie. She is a good egg though. She BELIEVES global climate change IS a result of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere from man burning carbon based fuels that have been sequestered deep in the earth for millions of years. She thinks I'm misguided and visa versa. Carbon locked in compounds deep in the earth (coal, oil, natural gas, peat) are in what she calls the Long cycle, which can be millions of years. The carbon has been taken out of the atmosphere locked away. The Short carbon cycle would be less than a hundred years. That would be current pant growth that grows locking up carbon, dies and is burned, eaten or decomposes, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere in a steady state.

I believe the earth has much greater forces at work that change the climate. Ocean current cycles, sun spot cycles, volcanic activity putting dust and gases into the atmosphere to name a few. Natural gas industry leaks, methane from rotting plant materials and water vapor (especially water vapor) are "greenhouse gases" that have a much greater effect on the earth than CO2, most of which is completely out of mans control. We need to adapt to changing weather patterns or perish. I believe it is foolish to think man can "control" the earth's climate and the people behind the green movement have a political agenda that has little to due with climate and a lot to do with control over the resources and money of the world. I am not saying anything bad about people who believe in a clean environment but anything can be taken to extremes and well meaning people are being used to further a hidden dark agenda.

Your cousin is a good egg, and means well. I agree about the "extreme" part, but it is good for everyone to have some people keeping check on potential runaway emissions from humans and the large businesses that allow our current lifestyle. Profit over environment will always win out, especially when there is even a little doubt about humans impact on climate. co2 levels are the highest in history, humans should at least be concerned.

hc, fanaticism, which is a lot different then keeping an eye on environmental things, in any way shape or form is not a good thing

It's all about money, HC - as soon as you & your wacky buddies ( al gore, et.al.) realize that , you will start to make sense. The whole "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!" cry from the left is all about raping the USA of money & handing it to 3rd world shitholes. Take a look around - your still alive, right? The sun is still shining? The sky still blue? Nobody pouring used motor oil in the river? THEN WE'RE FINE - take a pill and enjoy this short life.

Democrats don't care about your health, or the environment - they want YOUR MONEY. Ever live in MA, NY, IL, or CA? All liberal bastions - all cost a fortune to live in. 2 + 2 doesn't equal anything but 4 -- even a 2 year old could figure that one out.

MA auto emissions -- who do you think gets hurt by this policy? I'll tell you - the very people you & your party claim the Republicans hate. Democrat policies do more to screw the poor than ANYTHING on this planet. I've lived it in both CA & MA. I know how it's done, & why it's done. MONEY. End of story.

Use your head and think about this long and hard: Wood smokes like a bastard, & fills valleys with haze that causes asthma attacks. Coal doesn't do any of that. Which fuel are the dems & enviro-weenies condemning? COAL. Case closed.

Great post! I hereby nominate Smitty for President.

Imagine ... me as president .... Boy, that would go over like a fart in a lead suit!

SMITTY wrote:Imagine ... me as president .... Boy, that would go over like a fart in a lead suit!

I can hear your campaign slogan now. "A two stoke in every garage and a judge under every pillow."

lsayre wrote:But if you assume that the plant matter which eventually became coal was similarly eventually replaced by new plant matter, if the carbon cycle is observed over a large enough time frame, wouldn't coal also be a CO2 wash (I.E., neutral)?

Technically yes if you want to consider a few hundred million years as a cycle, that's just not realistic because it would take so long to complete the cycle if ever. If man were to actually be here a few hundred millions years now that cycle would be extended far beyond the original one becasue of a lot interference by man. We utilize that plant matter that created coal and there is not a whol lot being put back into the cycle to form new coal. Even the early stages of coal like peat are utilized.

Wood is a realistic cycle because we can store as much CO that is being liberated. Of course that wouldn't be a realistic scenario either if everyone heated with wood. I don't know how many acres you need per household to maintain that balance but it has to be somewhere in the 10+ range.