next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
lag will shrink nearly to zero. And this may be repeated o --001a1136b2d6e6711c05284fc058 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks David But I question the logic of the last Para. In my county Devon, we have some good stands of beech. The story was that these were planted for charcoal but since the technology changed w coal coke replacing charcoal, the beech were left and are now substantial. Needs study but it opens up assumptions which is good. In this same county we have Woodbury Common where tradional cutting of trees perhaps grazing and the cutting of furze (gorse) led to the romantic moorland that is probably product of continual nutrient removal and not a native system in this place. Monbiot as you know has some hard words for the sheep in the lake district and in scotland which prevents the reinstatement of Caledonian forest (sheep wrecked) Nick On Jan 1, 2016 8:04 PM, "David & Alison Webster" <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: > Hi Nick & All, Jan 1, 2016 > The idea that---"England....was charcoaling most of its forests." for > the reduction of iron and the use of coke prevented widespread > deforestation is a widespread myth but is at variance with the facts. > The large ironworks which developed for volume production, e.g. > casting of large cannon were not at all portable so they had to rely on > nearby forests and take care to not deplete them, as outlined below > From: http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/charcoal_history.cfm > > "Although historians have often considered that the excessive felling of > timber to fuel the iron industries resulted in woodland loss, it is now > recognised that this theory is wholly incorrect. The iron industry was long > term in nature and iron works jealously guarded their supplies. > Furthermore, most of the timber used in the charcoal kiln was of coppice > origin. Coppice material was of regular size, was easy to handle and load > and required minimal recutting. Woods close to the iron works survived > because their place as fuel providers to the iron industry raised their > economic importance and prevented their loss to agriculture as happened > elsewhere." > > The above is in substantial agreement with information from Edlin > which I posted a while ago; it being-- > > As covered in some detail in Trees, Woods and Man, H.L.Edlin, 1956, > 272 > pp. most deforestation was a gradual consequence of other practices such > as > mowing natural hay or bedding in relatively open woodland and the teeth of > domesticated animals which killed any regeneration. Without regeneration > the > forest gradually died out. This information is scattered & I will not > attempt to dig it out. > But can quote from the passage which relates to charcoal (p. 88) "Vast > quantities of wood were consumed for charcoal. to "reduce" the iron ores > to > metal before the use of coke was understood (Straker, 1931). But it was > cut > from coppices of broadleaved trees, which sent up fresh shoots from their > stumps within a year of being felled; and these coppices were managed by > men > who knew the elements of rotational cutting. So today in the very region > where devastation might otherwise have been greatest, we find the only > large > portion of England with an outstandingly high proportion of woodland; in > the > five south-eastern counties of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire, and > Hampshire 14.6 per cent of the land as against 5.8 per cent for England as > a > whole." > > Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Nicholas Hill <fernhillns@gmail.com> > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2015 4:32 PM > *Subject:* Re: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry > > A friend recently accused me of being "gnomic", and ill-educated lout as i > am, i took issue at being called a gnome, but moving into this here case at > hand, I think the gnomes have it: "And warning that use of biomass is not > green is perhaps already an effective way to indirectly kill trees." Not > exactly gnomic but not entirely designed for clarity and explicitness. Then > we have: "And if not now, then without doubt in the future." This non > sentence leaves us without a doubt in the future waiting with and like > Godot for some Christmas clarety. > > Seriously, I see Dave's point and Jamie's. England found a way through > Edward Darby to stop using beech trees for coking to make steel; Darby > figured out how to substitute coal for wood and thank god because England > had run out of most decent sized trees and was charcoaling most of its > forests. David is right that the first quotation is an overstatement but > Jamie's point was most welcome in today's Herald. We not only are running > the risk of losing good forest but we are running down our forest soils so > that tree regrowth is poor, forest composition is weedy, wildlife suffers, > and the carbon balance (ie. that less carbon dioxide is being emitted than > would be if we allowed forests to grow and used conventional fossil fuels > in the most efficient manner) is questionable. We want to move away from > "Green" that is not sustainable for wildlife and I would put biomass and > large scale hydroelectric both in that unsustainable class. > > Good on David and Jamie, the environmental critic and the advocate. > > Merry Christmas guys > > Nick > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:56 PM, David & Alison Webster < > dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, Dec 23, 2015 >> There is an article on biomass in today's Chron. Hrld. page A3 >> "Biomass may be less than green: report". I could not see how to extract a >> link to this article. >> The warning was issued some years ago to "Beware of false prophets" >> and if this article is at all accurate then Jamie Simpson and Aaron Ward >> may qualify to some extent. >> These biomass plants leave much to be desired and constructive >> criticism will hopefully lead to better context integration in future but >> saying that "...the province is not capable of proving that harvesting >> for biomass is better for the environment than burning coal." is >> misleading in the extreme. >> First of all it is an example of deplorable prose because >> superficially it would appear to say that burning biomass for power is no >> better for the environment than burning coal. Unless huge amounts of CO2 >> are released in the course of cutting, hauling and preparation for burning >> then the above would be false. >> But burning of biomass is not mentioned; only harvesting for biomass >> is mentioned in that