Comment Log Display

I'm not sure how it makes sense for timber companies to sell carbon
credits while at the same time removing
carbon-neutralizing/sequestering features from the landscape.
Replanting a seedling to replace a mature tree does not defray the
carbon sequestration lost, now does it? Not for another three or
four human generations will those seedlings that survive (those
that survive) be equivalent to those lost. One need not be a
scientist to think this through rationally.

While this cap and trade process is enormously (and necessarily, to
some degree) political, decisions should be based on science and
rational considerations, should they not?!

Thanks in advance for reconsidering such a proposal, such a
giveaway, for California timber companites.