Temperate rainforests to be restored in Wales and Isle of Man

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, The Phantom said:

Mitigates flooding somewhat,

This theory doesn't hold any water with me😁

[Derek Flint]

13 hours ago, wrighty said:

Aviva donated 38million. The money will be used to pay people to do the work, likely creating jobs, tax revenue, and VAT receipts from spending. 
 

Being costly isn’t necessarily a bad thing. 

Doesn't that say a lot. A company donation of an amount almost equal to the Manx climate change budget funded by government.

 

How much charitable money might be there for the taking?

12 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Isn't a good proportion of that to do with the Larch disease issue?

I have a notion that notwithstanding butning wood releases carbon back into the atmosphere, there should be a plentiful supply of biomass for the island for some time ahead with the ash dieback felling?

12 hours ago, cissolt said:

The blue carbon project started out with no government backing by the same people involved in this, now we have a blue carbon team all on 40k+

I've been having an exchange of views on Twitter on this subject with the uplands manager, whom is a good bloke. They are advertising for.a 12 month LTE for someone to do stuff with reinstatement of peat bogs. c.£33k I recall. I'd suggested that this might be better achieved by a redeployment within the civil service. 

Here's a fun fact. The IOM peatlands sequestration about 18k tonnes of CO2 a year - which offsets British Airways emissions for tinkering - i.e. flying with more fuel than needed because its cheaper than topping up in certain places.

That sort of illustrates the enormity of the whole climate issue and the minimal dent the IOM can make. Would the £42m be much better spent on flood mitigation rather than the canute option?

[The Phantom]

13 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I have a notion that notwithstanding burning wood releases carbon back into the atmosphere, there should be a plentiful supply of biomass for the island for some time ahead with the ash dieback felling?

There is a difference between 'recent' carbon release and 'legacy' carbon release.  i.e. it's better to burn a tree that has only grown and sequestered carbon in the last 50 years versus peat at 100s/1000s of years or oil and coal which would be in millions of years. 

You'd think that maybe they would do something useful with the trees felled due to the various diseases that have unsurprisingly ripped through our densely planted single species plantations.  But I've never seen anything suggesting they are selling it off for burning.  Can they still use the wood for the intended purpose of building things if they've been felled due to disease? 

[Roxanne]

 

1 hour ago, The Phantom said:

Can they still use the wood for the intended purpose of building things if they've been felled due to disease? 

Yes. forestry advice is that the wood should be be wasted.

For every large tree felled, three medium trees (native species) should be planted it its place.

I"m currently sat in front of a blazing fire of ash donated to me by some friends who had to fell an eighty year old tree that was in danger of taking their house down. As sad as it is, it makes extremely good firewood.

[Happier diner]

7 hours ago, The Phantom said:

There is a difference between 'recent' carbon release and 'legacy' carbon release.  i.e. it's better to burn a tree that has only grown and sequestered carbon in the last 50 years versus peat at 100s/1000s of years or oil and coal which would be in millions of years. 

You'd think that maybe they would do something useful with the trees felled due to the various diseases that have unsurprisingly ripped through our densely planted single species plantations.  But I've never seen anything suggesting they are selling it off for burning.  Can they still use the wood for the intended purpose of building things if they've been felled due to disease? 

I'm not sure about the science of that!

[Mercenary]

11 hours ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not sure about the science of that!

You've got blue carbons, old carbons and new carbons. New carbons react differently with sunlight 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Happier diner]

13 minutes ago, Mercenary said:

You've got blue carbons, old carbons and new carbons. New carbons react differently with sunlight 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I always thought carbon was carbon and carbon dioxide was carbon dioxide. Have you a link to this. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just dont understand it. 

[Mercenary]

7 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I always thought carbon was carbon and carbon dioxide was carbon dioxide. Have you a link to this. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just dont understand it. 

It's commonly known that old carbons were much better and just got on with it, whereas newer carbons identify differently. Manx carbons also have a unique crab like texture that result in relative cooling

 

 

 

 

[Non-Believer]

Manx carbon is/will also be invariably more expensive than other run of the mill varieties.