Comments on: Burning Interest in Ann Arbor Parks

By: Bob Martel

Bob Martel — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:30:43 +0000

Please an unfortunate note a typo in the above: “freeing up to permanently sequestered” should read “freeing up of permanently sequestered”

By: Bob Martel

Bob Martel — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:28:20 +0000

Carbon released by burning of living plant matter, or the decaying recently dead plant matter, does not contribute to global warming as a like amount of carbon is subsequently sequestered by the growth of new plants to replace the dead or burned ones. To add meaningfully to the atmospheric carbon load requires the freeing up to permanently sequestered carbon into the atmosphere such as what occurs when fossil fuels (coal, oil & natural gas, basically) are removed from the earth and burned. Burns (controlled or otherwise) can release other pollutants into the atmosphere, however.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:03:53 +0000

Burning would have occurred naturally, more often and uncontrolled, were it not for human intervention. Because of overdevelopment we must occasionally attempt to mimic what we have prevented the earth from doing on its own. The amount of carbon released from burning the land would have happened regardless. I believe that human development, and not just from industrial processes, has incurred the release far greater amounts of carbon into the atmosphere than any amount from a controlled burn. If it weren’t for overdevelopment, including what I have contributed, controlled burns might not be necessary to complete the life cycle of many plants and animals.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:45:07 +0000

In regard to #2, even composting adds to carbon dioxide release. Anything that results in the breaking of bonds in complex carbon-based substances (plant and animal remains, or hydrocarbons) to carbon dioxide contributes. Of course, we humans are adding just by our respiration.

Since these burns happen only in small areas once a year, I’m comfortable with the benefit gained vs. the cost in carbon release. Maybe it looks dramatic because of the smoke, but I doubt that it contributes much in the global scale of things.

By: johnboy

johnboy — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:27:14 +0000

How many tons of carbon pollutant does a “controled burn” add to the global warming problem? Or are we supposed to be PC and ignore the pollution?

By: Bob Martel

Bob Martel — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:06:09 +0000

In reading these articles in the Chronicle I am often amazed at how much work is going on behind the scenes in this community to ensure that Ann Arbor remains a great place to live. My thanks to all the folks involved in the above endeavors and also a thanks to both Mary & Dave for making it possible for those of us who are the beneficiaries of these efforts to better understand that this stuff does not happen by magic!