Premier Doug Ford announces $20 million program to burn more wood to generate electricity with his

[applegrove]

Absurd and astounding but not surprising - while fires rage and smoke blankets Ontario to the point we can't go outside, Premier Doug Ford announces $20 million program to burn more wood to generate electricity with his Forest Biomass Action Plan...

https://seniorsforclimateactionnow.org/while-fires-rage-premier-ford-announces-program-to-burn-more-wood-by-david-robertson/

Ford claims “it will help to reduce emissions and address climate change while positioning Ontario as a leader in the green economy.”

https://mstdn.ca/@kthomason/110618802401905107

[canuckledragger]

1. Why do conservatives always lie and claim things that are opposite to facts and reality?

We can't get rid of this former coke dealer fast enough.

[applegrove]

2. I don't think he's pleasing anyone with his policies. He was better when he stuck to Justine

like glue on Covid policy.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. If you cut down trees and convert them to fuel to be used all over the world

it's a LOT better than just letting them burn in forest fires ... while providing fuel for nobody.

The trick is knowing which trees would inevitably burn in forest fires.

But there are ways of roughly predicting that. Esp. if the forest scientists involved aren't dipshit climate change deniers.

Just sayin'

[applegrove]

4. Wood burning fires are bad for the environment.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

5. If the option is 'wood burning fire used to heat your house or cook food'

as opposed to 'wood burning in a raging forest fire' ... then I have to disagree

[applegrove]

6. That is not a realistic comparison. Doug Ford does not have control over forest fires.

It is not something he can stop except for aiming to be carbon neutral. Which means only the rarist fires wood fires at home. He can issue orders for no outdoor fires by civilians to try and stop forest fires when it is dry but they did that and look at the forest fires we still have. False choice.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

7. I refer you to my original post #3

Where I made my stipulations from the start.

I'm not sure what his 'policy' is, but without knowing that ... I could see a scenario where a well-managed, science-based plan ... could have positive results.

[applegrove]

8. Well it is impossible to know which trees will burn like you said. And losing

more trees than happen in nature just reduces the carbon sink the forests are.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

9. Except ... it's not impossible ... in fact it's possible with a fairly high degree of probability

It's impossible to know with 100% certainty, yes.

But you underestimate 'forest science' if you think it's 'impossible'.

It's far from it.

[applegrove]

10. Oh you can't control where lightening strikes and that is how fires

mostly start. The only thing to do is stop burning carbon and maybe 200 years later the climates will return to normal. . We are talking about areas 12 thousand miles rectangular. There is no way.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

12. I'm saying there are areas where a combination of factors can be assessed

Drought/Rainfall patterns, soil moisture, flammable undergrown, lightning patterns, concentrations of diseased/deceased trees, proximity to humans who may drop cigarettes or factories/plants that could spew sparks, etc ... and come up with areas where it may make good, logical sense to cull trees and use them as fuel instead of letting them burn up in forest fires, a scenario where they do NOBODY any good.

[applegrove]

13. This on pizza oven that burn coal or wood neat mitigating. This in NY City.

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/06/ny-plan-cut-pizza-oven-emissions-burns

[Hugh_Lebowski]

14. You are just not following me, and that's okay

Good day my friend

[applegrove]

15. Yes. I admit to having a bee in my bonnet. Thanks for understanding.