best of cc.com Carbon Neutral Denali Climb May 2008

[AlpineK]

Carbon Neutral

 

Hey you want to climb Denali It's a cool place to go successful or not. Good luck.

 

As for the whole Carbon Neutral thing well it's an interesting motivation. I shake my head a bit looking at your sponsors.

 

As far as planting new trees to offset your carbon footprint all I can say is preserving large old trees does a lot more to reduce the footprint than planting new trees. I'm really disgusted when I keep hearing about the rain forests in Brazil that are cut to plant crops for ethanol or biodiesel production.

 

But anyway have a good trip.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Feck

[tomtom]

Ski wear goes high-tech with KJUS's latest jacket, which boasts an integrated MP3 player and control panel on its sleeve, so you can listen to music without fiddling with an iPod tucked deep in your pocket. There's also a Bluetooth system to easily chat on your mobile. What's more, jacket's fibers retain and release heat as needed, so you'll never be too toasty or too chilly. Available in men's and women's sizes.

 

What can be more important to an expedition than a means by which it can be tracked and able to notify people in the event of an emergency? SPOT Inc., has provided the team with the world's first satellite messenger that uses GPS to determine a location in the SPOT network to transmit that information to friends, family and an evergency service center. We'll try to get it set up soon, the work with it while training. Ultimately, we will link it to a Google Map so that our progress from Vancouver to Anchorage and beyond can be watched.

[Zoran]

Time to move on to better things.

 

Thank you all who responded and to the readers who didn't bother to join this conversation. :-)

 

For critics ...

I heard hard words but I won't pay attention to them.

I will promise now I will walk hard to the summit of Denali. I found inspiration in songs of my idol D.C. who cut his brother in half.

 

He said in Walk Hard:

"...Even if you've been told time and time again

That you're always gonna lose and you're never gonna win

Gotta keep that vision in your mind's eye

When you're standing on top of a mountain high ..."

 

Latter he said in Guilty As Charged:

"...I don't even care what anyone thinks

I stay up all night and I smoke and I drink

I'm a wanted man and I'm blowin town

Don't even bother tryin' to hunt me down

The cops are sayin I belong behind bars

And I'm Guilty

I'm Guilty as Charged ..."

 

For supporters:

Thank you. This song D.C. wrote for you:

 

"...It’s about the good walk

And the hard walk

And the young girls you’ve made cry

It’s about make a little music everyday ‘til you di-ie

..."

 

 

Isn't he genius?

 

P.S.

I hope nobody will respond to this reply and this topic will be over.

:-)

Z

 

 

[MarkMcJizzy]

Time to move on to better things.

 

I hope nobody will respond to this reply and this topic will be over.

:-)

Z

 

Fat chance, and then Dru will pop up

 

 

You will make mistake not looking for more attractive gear than any clothes we have for pro-deals or available in US. Could you please see this small company from Europe? My friend just sent me link.

 

Hey pal, I got style, and that was only 25 years ago. I look even better now.

 

100% American made

[G-spotter]

get a job, hippie

[salbrecher]

Carbon Neutral

 

 

As far as planting new trees to offset your carbon footprint all I can say is preserving large old trees does a lot more to reduce the footprint than planting new trees.

 

Feck, young planted forests will sequester far more carbon throughout the first part of their lives than old growth forests.

 

Zoran, I saw on your website that you are only offsetting your carbon to get to the mountain and while on it, but not any other carbon output directly related to your climb. Is a climb really carbon neutral if you do not offset the carbon that was emitted by the manufacture and shipping of your clothes to the US, the carbon emitted by driving around town to get equipment and food etc ?

 

Paying to offset your carbon emissions and not making any effort to cut them while actually on the climb (by skiing in out, for example) seems misguided. It just seems like another one of the many climb peak X for cause Y climbs that you see on the mountain as a way for people to justify a selfish activity and get sponsorship to do their climb. I can think of so many better ways to raise awareness for global warming than creating a huge personal carbon footprint just to get to a mountain that sees only 2000 people a year. I'm sure there are better places with a higher density of people that you could bring awareness to.

 

As far as being the first climb to go carbon neutral, you are not, really, and advertising it to gain sponsorship could be seen as deceitful. If going carbon neutral means not changing your polluting ways and paying or doing something that indirectly compensates for your emissions then my partner Nick Elson and I climbed Denali In 2006 and were actually carbon NEGATIVE. I have planted over 500000 trees in the past 6 years and Nick has planted over 200000 thereby making every single trip I have made into the mountains carbon negative. Give me the money and I'll plant the trees for you ! I'll even offset your pre-trip errands too.

 

Have a good carbon "neutral" climb.

[underworld]

wait a second... this is supposed to raise awairness of global warming, ie, save the glaciers. from what i hear most of the time on denali is spent making water (from the glacier). shouldn't your trip be to someplace where you wouldn't have to MELT GLACIERS WITH A STOVE to survive?

 

just sayin...

 

[salbrecher]

Hmm maybe I could sell ice offsets and freeze the equivalent amounts of water in my freezer that people will melt while on Denali... Hey Zoran I'll freeze it for 100$ a liter, how about it?

 

Stefan Albrecher

[Zoran]

Sound like good deal.

We will ask Arcteryx to sponsor us to buy your water. How about that? We both will be happy.

Z

[Zoran]

Is a climb really carbon neutral if you do not offset the carbon that was emitted by the manufacture and shipping of your clothes to the US, the carbon emitted by driving around town to get equipment and food etc ?

 

Few days ago I spoke with my friend here in Vancouver and he told me about theory that our bodies generate heat and even if we just sit we impacting environment. Even if we do our best we end up distroying planet.

He concluded that if we really want to be honest in our effort to protect the Earth and stop polution, we should just kill ourselves as soon as possible.

I am concern about his well being ...

I don't like chat but I use G-mail chat from time to time just to see is he there.

Zoran

[pindude]

...As far as being the first climb to go carbon neutral, you are not, really, and advertising it to gain sponsorship could be seen as deceitful...

 

Nelson's Peak Freak team on Everest is "carbon neutral," and without looking at all the other current Everest or worldwide expeditions out there, I'd wager they're not the only one attempting to be green.

[Bigtree]

...theory that our bodies generate heat and even if we just sit we impacting environment. Even if we do our best we end up d[e]stroying planet...

 

The "theory" is called respiration which is "The release of energy from glucose or other organic substances inside living cells. During respiration, sugar/starch, and oxygen is turned into carbon dioxide, water and energy. Every cell needs to respire in order to produce the energy it needs." Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and presuming that you believe in the guilt-ridden theory that global warming is caused by anthropogenic activities, I'm tempted to encourage all such believers to adopt your suggested fix; however, that would result in the elimination of some good fun for me, so don't do it.

 

 

[Bigtree]

...Nelson's Peak Freak team on Everest is "carbon neutral,"...

 

Pindude, http://www.peakfreaks.com/greentheme.htm is a very funny read (e.g., "The Carbon Neutral movement was started by the David Suzuki Foundation" or, "...'carbon credits'...a must-have accessory for individuals and organizations who want to fight climate change and show their green credentials." or, "Everyone from banks like HSBC, to rock bands like the Rolling Stones, to almost 500 NHL players are purchasing carbon offsets for their emissions."

 

[underworld]

to be carbon neutral, would you then have to assume there is some efficiency in the system that is greater than or equal to 100%???

 

never gunna happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[pindude]

Bigtree, thus the reason I used "carbon neutral" in quotation marks and and the phrase "attempting to be green." Not that that's a bad thing: at least there is beginning to be awareness of how our actions affect everything around us. On a related note, MIT prof and meteorologist Edward Lorenz passed away just two days ago.

 

[MarkMcJizzy]

 

Feck, young planted forests will sequester far more carbon throughout the first part of their lives than old growth forests.

 

 

References? Carbon sequestion is proportional to increase of biomass. Are you so sure that the biomass of a young forest is growing so much faster than a old mature forest? It is possible that the increase of biomass is nearly equal, but the growth of young trees are so much more visually apparent. New biomass on a huge old tree could be enormous, but very difficult to measure because it is spread over a large area.

 

Also, one could argue that lawns are better at sequestering carbon than trees

[Bigtree]

Clipped from Union of Concerned Scientists website (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/fa04-catalyst-forest-carbon-sequestration.html)...

 

"Photosynthesis and respiration are the essential machinery by which forests store and release carbon. As a tree grows, it absorbs CO2 from the air and, through the process of photosynthesis, uses solar energy to store carbon in its roots, stems, branches, and foliage. Some carbon is released back into the atmosphere as CO2 during respiration, but a living tree acts as a carbon “sink”—storing more carbon than it releases. Trees continue to accumulate carbon until they reach maturity, at which point about half of the average tree’s dry weight will be carbon.

 

When trees decay and die, they become a carbon source, releasing more carbon than they can absorb. And when forests are harvested, burned, or cleared by humans, or in the event of a natural disturbance such as fire or disease, some of the carbon stored in the trees’ cells is released into the atmosphere. Stored carbon, however, can be transferred into forest products—for example, wood used for lumber, furniture, and other durable goods can hold its carbon for decades or even centuries if well maintained.

 

Recent estimates show that U.S. forests, grasslands, and agricultural lands form a sizable carbon sink. Even a forest that undergoes regular harvesting can act as a carbon sink as long as yearly growth exceeds the amount of carbon removed during harvest. The U.S. carbon sink absorbs 1.1 to 2.6 million metric tons of CO2 each year, which is equivalent to 20 to 46 percent of total U.S. global warming emissions."

[MarkMcJizzy]

This doesn't say anything about carbon sequestion per unit time per growth stage.

 

I am just challenging the statement that young forests sequester more carbon than older forests. One would have to know the changes in biomass of a forest from say 0-10 years, 10-20 years, and the incremental growth of needles, under story, and diameter of a 200 year old forest. I do not think the answer is completely clear

Edited April 19, 2008 by Markmckillop

[Bigtree]

 

 

Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some Issues for Forest Investments (http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-01-34.pdf)...

 

"Forests operate both as vehicles for capturing additional carbon and as carbon reservoirs. A young forest, when growing rapidly, can sequester relatively large volumes of additional carbon roughly proportional to the forest’s growth in biomass. An old-growth forest acts as a reservoir, holding large volumes of carbon even if it is not experiencing net growth. Thus, a

young forest holds less carbon, but it is sequestering additional carbon over time. An old forest may not be capturing any new carbon but can continue to hold large volumes of carbon as biomass over long periods of time. Managed forests offer the opportunity for influencing forest growth rates and providing for full stocking, both of which allow for more carbon sequestration."

 

[MarkMcJizzy]

Good job Bigtree. And thank you for your continued holding of large volumes of carbon. Someday you'll be a fine beam, and hopefully a little hog fuel too.

[Zoran]

There is another Carbon Neutral expedition:

http://www.carbonneutralexpeditions.com/

They will sail from England and ski afterwards. Good plan.

Similar to Erden's trip.

Zoran

[salbrecher]

Few days ago I spoke with my friend here in Vancouver and he told me about theory that our bodies generate heat and even if we just sit we impacting environment. Even if we do our best we end up distroying planet.

He concluded that if we really want to be honest in our effort to protect the Earth and stop polution, we should just kill ourselves as soon as possible.

I am concern about his well being ...

I don't like chat but I use G-mail chat from time to time just to see is he there.

Zoran

 

Zoron The Earth has been converting CO2 to oxygen by photosynthesis for 3 billion years and it hasn't been destroyed yet by the "theory" that your friend told you about. The Earths forests and oceans can handle a certain amount of CO2 from our breathing without destroying the environment. I do however agree that the best thing for the environment would be for humans to kill themselves off.

[Zoran]

You scaring me ...

:-)

 

[MarkMcJizzy]

 

Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some Issues for Forest Investments (http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-01-34.pdf)...

 

"Forests operate both as vehicles for capturing additional carbon and as carbon reservoirs. A young forest, when growing rapidly, can sequester relatively large volumes of additional carbon roughly proportional to the forest’s growth in biomass. An old-growth forest acts as a reservoir, holding large volumes of carbon even if it is not experiencing net growth. Thus, a

young forest holds less carbon, but it is sequestering additional carbon over time. An old forest may not be capturing any new carbon but can continue to hold large volumes of carbon as biomass over long periods of time. Managed forests offer the opportunity for influencing forest growth rates and providing for full stocking, both of which allow for more carbon sequestration."

 

Bigtree,

 

I know you're a Bigtree and all, but maybe you're Big Dumb tree. Your quote is from a bunch of logging flacks. They wanna kill all big trees. You too. We'd miss you.

 

The juxtaposition of atmospheric recovery and logging is interesting. Help the defeat Global Warming! Log the shit outa the place!

[AlpineK]

Feck, young planted forests will sequester far more carbon throughout the first part of their lives than old growth forests.

 

salbrecher I suggest you do a little research before making brash statements.

 

Contrast your statement with

 

Planting forests is one of the most common ways of offsetting carbon emissions. For just £5, an offsetting company will plant a tree and thereby compensate for roughly half the emissions produced on a round trip from London to New York. But stopping trees from being cut down in the first place could well be a far more effective way of tackling climate change.

 

Deforestation is responsible for 20% of global CO2 emissions. That is more than the CO2 produced by the global transportation industry and almost as much as is produced by global power generation, according to last year's Stern Review. Illegal logging also funds civil wars and supports oppressive regimes in countries like Burma.

 

 

Source

 

Furthermore

 

Important new scientific studies, including a recent SCIENCE article, highlight the importance of old-growth forest ecosystems as a mechanism to address climate change, and provide a powerful new argument for protecting ancient forests. New studies indicate that old-growth continues to remove carbon even when fully mature, and that old and wild forests are better than plantations at dependably removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Huge amounts of carbon are sequestered for long periods in old-growth ecosystems—both in trees and perhaps more importantly in soils. Soils in undisturbed tropical rain forests and temperate woodlands contain enormous amounts of carbon derived from fallen leaves, twigs and buried roots that can bind to soil particles and remain in place for 1,000 years or more. When such forests are cut, the trees' roots decay and soil is disrupted, releasing the carbon dioxide. It would take centuries for newly planted trees to build up such an underground carbon reservoir.

 

Source

 

After reading your statements I think back to the classic quote.

 

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981