This is an excellent point. Here's an article stating as much (based on the less fuel efficient TJ):

http://www.jeep.co.uk/jeep/pdf/greenjeep.pdf

There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to fuel efficiency vs. "saving the environment". The Prius will take you further with less fuel, so it saves you money-- that is the #1 reason most people buy these things. But the Prius does much more for your wallet than it does for the environment. They take far more energy to build than a Wrangler does, they are far more difficult to dispose of than a Wrangler is, they have a shorter life than a Wrangler and they can't get you out to Nature so you can know how to appreciate it in the first place. When all is said and done, it can absolutely be argued that a Wrangler is, in many ways, greener than a Prius.

Also remember that the JK's fuel standards are magnitudes better than its predecessors. Some members are built up and still claiming 22 mpg highway (don't ask me how.... mine ain't ). So, if our Wranglers today are more off-road capable than the Wranglers of 10 years ago and they have far better fuel efficiency, somebody must be on the right track.... they just need to keep going with that.

 

Instead. I work hard to decrease my carbon footprint. Whenever I loose gas mileage I change another behavior.

 

THAT STATEMENT IS FLAWED!!!!!

Yes, millions of acres/hectares of mature/ over-mature forest stands are harvested.

HOWEVER, with these mature/over-mature stands (OLD GROWTH) actually ADD to the CO2 footprint as they released more CO2 then O2 into the atmosphere. The reason is the mature/over mature tree's growth is declining from age, health factors (insects & Disease) and other forest disturbances.

With the removal of these mature/over mature forest stands from harvesting . Forest Companies REPLANT/REFOREST the sites with new tree seedlings to recommend stocking standards, species type within the correct Biogeoclimatic zones. With harvesting and REFORESTATION we are actually helping reduce the CO2 footprint as these seedling are young, vibrant and healthy and replace the decaying and dying mature forest. With the younger & healthy reforested stands they will contribute and reduce the CO2 footprint throught the process of photosynthesis more readily than a mature and over-mature forests.

 

Are you saying photosynthesis yeilds co2 in lieu of oxygen in mature trees? They must of glossed over this detail to avoid confusing us in high school.

Or is the argument that new seedlings are metabolize more co2 as they race to the sky ? This argument is also flawed in regards to what is happening to rainforest. Industry there is doing the same thing we did in the US. harvest the area til it's more profitable to move on. They are creating grazing pastures for cows & farms & all the other things that modern humans need for modern society. And I don't hold this against them. I don't see any way around it. We can't stand on soap boxes made of old growth hardwoods & tell them not to use thier resources like we did. I understand that modern forresting companies replant, but it wasn't always so.

Now to muddy the waters further, I thought that algae made more O2 than trees. Perhaps one could argue that the manicured lawn is putting nutrients in water that could be used by algae to combat global warming?

 

Photosynthesis from my high school days as you state is still the process of converting CO2 to O2 still to this day has not changed. Also,.......if you would read my statement correctly.

I stated mature & over mature forests (+100 years old) release more CO2 than O2 vs. a younger forest stand due to age, health issues, etc.. Forestry Studies suggest that the immature (younger forest stands) versus the mature/old growth forest absorbed more carbon (CO2) than they release. So to put it in High School Terms.....the younger stands produce more O2 through the process of photosynthesis and oldgrowth still produces O2 but contributes more CO2. There are many factors that will affect photosynthesis: Crown closure, soils, water availablity, shape, type, color and arrangement of leaves, elevation, temperature, tree age....etc.

Also, from the study the young forest stand had a much higher carbon assimilation budget than the old-growth forest under similar climatic conditions. In addition, the net carbon dioxide absorption and O2 releases in the young plantation can be several times higher than in the old-growth forest.

Some of those sites you seen logged and never replanted are they privately or publicly owned lands? All public land was and is still by law must be reforested and free-growing by set standards in the Forest Act and Regulations. Some clear cut sites companies did not have to replant. These clear cut sites were mechanically prepared or burnt to help create good eco-sites for natural regeneration to occur. In many cases natural regeneration made the standards and saved the forest company money. To say forest company's never reforested is CRAP....Why would a forest company not plant/reforest the stands removed if they had rights to harvest the landbase or even own the private land? They would decrease there annual allowable cut & landbasefor future harvests.

Some private lands and landowners, can be a different story....are you really seeing the entire picture??? Yes you may see clear-cut forestry and never planted. However, does that land owner want a forest stand there again? Does that landowner want it for grazing or development?

 

crap... biology... im out... it was fun!

 

That would make great sense to only harvest the dead and dying trees....but it is not economically feasible as you have to construct roads to the sites, haul the harvesting equipment for smaller scale logging which increases your cost per cubic meter. Also, the quality of wood you would get from the sites would get a low value as most would be hauled for Pulp chips due to rot, breakage, and checking (cracks).

Most sites talking with Silviculture Foresters it is better to clear cut than to selective harvest the wood. You get few plantable sites due to dominant seed trees crowns. Also, if you can find a reasonable planting site the seedling will have to overcome reduced amount of sunlight, nutrients and water affecting its growth. On top of that multiple pass systems you will try to utilize existing skid trails to reduce soil compaction and erosion and possible damage to existing and replanted trees.

 

I smell a new market. You can harvest the dead and dying trees market is as environmentally friendly and charge a ridiculous fee for it. The hippies will buy it and you'll be swimming in money that you can then use to improve your business and lower the overall cost of the rest of harvesting you do.

 

Every for of energy will have impacts on the environment at some point. 8 Billion people on earth isn't helping any and the majority of them are in China and India.

 

Actually, photosynthesis only occurs during the day. At night, terrestrial plants and trees use O2 just like all living things. The yuse the sugar they store. Most of the net O2 production comes from photosynthesis from algae in the oceans. This is beyond high school biology.