Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:49 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

|!On 14 May 2007 23:38:16 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
|!
|! It's a bit misleading. They emit much more CO2 than is shown in that
|! bar chart. The thing is the CO2 they emit was recently absorbed from
|! the atmosphere as the original plant grew, and I assume that's been
|! omitted.
|!
|!Ah that answers my question about why the carbon emmisions where so low
|!for wood. I can live with that. But they really ought to explain it a bit
|!more clearly, I suspect most people think that CO2 is bad end of story, in
|!my view it's not that simple. We could burn just as much "oil" as we burn
|!now provided that the source of that "oil" was from a renewable source.

Only CO2 from fossil fuels causes global warming. Anything where the
carbon is recycled over a few years/tens of years, like logs, and
bio-diesel does not have any substantial effect

|!Thats my view but we also have to do something about re-fixing the fossil
|!C02 that has been released in the last few hundred years.

Can not be done :-( there is too much CO2, many millions of tons, in the
atmosphere to even attempt it. I live on top of the Barnsley Seam of
coal, seven foot of best quality coal. Put "Barnsley Seam" into Wikipedia
and you will find 25 collieries which mined it. Think about getting that
underground again. I have not mentioned all the other coal seams and oil
fields.

Would take a lot of nuclear power stations to generate the energy to
turn the CO2 back into coal...;-)