For the sake of argument:

 

If we cut down all the old growth forests and replaced them with new forests, we would be reducing the greenhouse effect. New forests fix more carbon (removing C02 from the atmosphere); whereas, old growth forests release more C02 into the atmosphere - contributing more to the greenhouse effect.

BUt old growth forests house a greater habitat, tehre roots are deeper, and so on, if try to fix this one problem then a myriad of otehr problems will occur. This has been mans problem with attempting to solve ecology since we started.

Plus, Old growth forests are often the most beautiful, awe-inspiring forests on the planet. They're age is immense, as are the trees themselves.

I agree, I remember when I was about 7 my family visited the redwood trees in California, I'll always remember them.

 

I wish we had more trees like them.

Instead, what do we have? Chairs and kitchen dinettes.... "sure we slaughtered the forests and every ancient, enormous entity in them, but isn't this woodwork lovely?"

I loathe humanity

I concure, humanity is the solution to, and cause of all it's problems, and natures problems.

 

We could make this world a paradise if the corporations weren't so greedy, and if our ethics were more utilitarian.

 

Nobody would have to worry about food, nobody would have to worry about disease.

 

But because of human nature, we as humanity fear science, fear change, fear progress. We instead want something evil and vile that we know, than something that could make our world perfect that we don't.

New forests fix more carbon (removing C02 from the atmosphere); whereas, old growth forests release more C02 into the atmosphere - contributing more to the greenhouse effect.

 

By this logic, we should kill all the animals, since they also contribute to greenhouse effect by inconsiderately continuing to breathe.

 

Mokele

Remember...we are also a part of nature. Does a bear, for example really care or realize the consequences of it's actions (ie: shitting in a creek and spreading parasites (no blame)). I am truly happy to be a human - we realize (or are beginning to realize) the consequences of our actions. I can't think of anything else I'd rather be.

I can't think of anything else I'd rather be.

 

Pigs have 30-minute orgasms.

When you're as ugly as a pig you enjoy it when you can.

 

As to the original post, the main problem with the logic that I can tell is that old growth forests are often on fairly poor soil, so that fast growing plants don't thrive there. We'd be better off worrying about replacing the trees on good soil that were felled where we can I think.

Voted NO - it is representative of biodiversity we can neither afford to lose nor easily replace.

For the sake of argument:

 

If we cut down all the old growth forests and replaced them with new forests' date=' we would be reducing the greenhouse effect. New forests fix more carbon (removing C02 from the atmosphere); whereas, old growth forests release more C02 into the atmosphere - contributing more to the greenhouse effect.[/quote']

 

Was it not proven that forestry has very little impact on the greenhouse effect?

Makes a good case for more marijuana patches, about the most efficient carbon sink, as plants go. Check it out.

 

That makes two marijuana comments for the day. I'll move on to something else.