We have emailed the verification/download link to "".
Login to your email and click the link to download the file directly.
Check your bulk/spam folders if you can't find our mail.
This presentation debunks many of the common misconceptions about forests, carbon, and climate change. [A few of the slides did not convert very accurately well. Contact me at dh@oregonwild.org if …
This presentation debunks many of the common misconceptions about forests, carbon, and climate change. [A few of the slides did not convert very accurately well. Contact me at dh@oregonwild.org if you want me to send you a link to the latest powerpoint.]
'Due to the distinct winter rainfall pattern in the PNW, hemp production without supplemental irrigation will probably not be economically feasible. While well-established hemp is somewhat drought tolerant, both yield and fiber quality are reduced by drought stress. With early spring planting, it may be possible to grow hemp using available soil moisture and rainfall in some areas west of the Cascades, much like spring cereal grains. Risks associated with such production will be high and yields may be quite variable from season to season. Erratic crop performance in non-irrigated hemp trials in Oregon during the 1930’s provide evidence of this risk. The lack of summer rainfall may put PNW growers at a significant disadvantage compared to growers in areas with regular summer rainfall such as the U.S. midwest and western Europe. Severe yield reductions or crop failure have been reported with hemp under drought conditions, and moisture is also required for field retting. Reliable irrigation can, however, reduce weather risks associated with rainfed production. Irrigation is not only an additional economic cost of production, but is also an environmental concern, especially considering recent controversies surrounding agricultural water use and increasing demand for in-stream water rights in the PNW.'
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sb/sb681/#Climate and Soils of the PNW:
Question: How is making a 2 X 4 out of a tree a 'short lived' wood product? A house stands for long, long time. I also would have to ask you to back up your statements that new vigorous growth uses less carbon than older trees. One must also be careful when throwing around the term 'old growth' - different tree species live much different lengths of time.
I think we need to put our energy in real environmental problems that are being ignored due to mass hysteria over a questionable theory of man caused climate change. For instance: we build housing developments full of houses big enough to house ten people with one to four people in them on our very best farm land where we should be growing food and fiber (trees).
If you don't like clearcuts, be honest and just say you don't like the idea for no reason other than aesthetics, don't make up phony reasons like acid rain, global warming, global cooling, spotted owls, etc. Every ten years there is another line of bullshit from ecofreaks whose underlying goal is to harm American industry.
Views
Actions
Embeds 0
Report content