<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Day One: The Pitfall of Forest Offsets?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.takeabite.cc/blog/day-one-the-pitfall-of-forest-offsets/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.takeabite.cc/blog/day-one-the-pitfall-of-forest-offsets/</link>
	<description>a project of the Small Planet Institute</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:13:26 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Leftover Sausage Links &#171; What Would Jesus Eat?</title>
		<link>http://www.takeabite.cc/blog/day-one-the-pitfall-of-forest-offsets/comment-page-1/#comment-359</link>
		<dc:creator>Leftover Sausage Links &#171; What Would Jesus Eat?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.takeabite.cc/?p=186#comment-359</guid>
		<description>[...] The Pitfall of Forest Offsets?- A critical look at the real impact of planting trees to offset climate change. Is there any solutions that don&#8217;t have a dark side? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Pitfall of Forest Offsets?- A critical look at the real impact of planting trees to offset climate change. Is there any solutions that don&#8217;t have a dark side? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vivian Parker</title>
		<link>http://www.takeabite.cc/blog/day-one-the-pitfall-of-forest-offsets/comment-page-1/#comment-307</link>
		<dc:creator>Vivian Parker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.takeabite.cc/?p=186#comment-307</guid>
		<description>The use of chemicals in forestry is a global problem. In the U.S., the EPA conducts toxicological and ecological analysis of forestry herbicides prior to approving the chemicals for use. 

However, in the EPA&#039;s analysis a false assumption is made that the herbicides are used only &quot;once or twice&quot; per tree crop rotation (50-80 years). This fallacy--that the chemicals are only applied at the very start of planting to give the young trees a boost--is supplied by the industry being regulated and is perpetuated throughout the entire regulatory system. By making this assumption, it is easy to brush off the impacts to wildlife, to plant communities,  and to water quality and human health as short term and negligible.  

In reality, in California and throughout the U.S., herbicides are applied repeatedly--sometimes as many as ten times in a rotation--thereby guaranteeing that the forest floor is completely denuded and dead. Many times the very conifers the industry is trying to grow are killed or stunted from the powerful chemicals and mixtures. 

In Shasta County alone, in Northern California in 2006, nearly 80,000 pounds of pure chemical herbicides were applied to the state&#039;s forests, in the headwaters of streams which supply water for millions of Californians. Statewide, 260,000 pounds of herbicides were applied to these forests, among the most conifer-diverse ecosystems on the planet, home to the Giant Sequoia and the Coast Redwood--the world&#039;s largest trees.  

An organized global effort must be made to end the unethical and unsustainable poisoning of the planet&#039;s forests. To pretend that once magnificent forests can be converted to tree farms which can play a role in carbon sequestration is an epic lie. Furthermore, tree plantations are highly flammable in many climates such as California&#039;s, and will remain so throughout their lifetimes--they cannot serve as reliable carbon sinks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The use of chemicals in forestry is a global problem. In the U.S., the EPA conducts toxicological and ecological analysis of forestry herbicides prior to approving the chemicals for use. </p>
<p>However, in the EPA&#8217;s analysis a false assumption is made that the herbicides are used only &#8220;once or twice&#8221; per tree crop rotation (50-80 years). This fallacy&#8211;that the chemicals are only applied at the very start of planting to give the young trees a boost&#8211;is supplied by the industry being regulated and is perpetuated throughout the entire regulatory system. By making this assumption, it is easy to brush off the impacts to wildlife, to plant communities,  and to water quality and human health as short term and negligible.  </p>
<p>In reality, in California and throughout the U.S., herbicides are applied repeatedly&#8211;sometimes as many as ten times in a rotation&#8211;thereby guaranteeing that the forest floor is completely denuded and dead. Many times the very conifers the industry is trying to grow are killed or stunted from the powerful chemicals and mixtures. </p>
<p>In Shasta County alone, in Northern California in 2006, nearly 80,000 pounds of pure chemical herbicides were applied to the state&#8217;s forests, in the headwaters of streams which supply water for millions of Californians. Statewide, 260,000 pounds of herbicides were applied to these forests, among the most conifer-diverse ecosystems on the planet, home to the Giant Sequoia and the Coast Redwood&#8211;the world&#8217;s largest trees.  </p>
<p>An organized global effort must be made to end the unethical and unsustainable poisoning of the planet&#8217;s forests. To pretend that once magnificent forests can be converted to tree farms which can play a role in carbon sequestration is an epic lie. Furthermore, tree plantations are highly flammable in many climates such as California&#8217;s, and will remain so throughout their lifetimes&#8211;they cannot serve as reliable carbon sinks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

