[quote=saltydog]Again two very good points.
1) Carbon conservation. Not as simple as "just say no". As you look at the sparse organic matter in the litter and duff layers in a subalpine forest, realize that most of the carbon you are looking at is headed more or less straight to the atmoshpere in the form of CO2, during the decomposition process. [/quote]
Carbon that goes into the atmosphere as CO2 during decay does so providing energy to microorganisms in the soil. The same energy you want to get by stealing the carbon for yourself to convert to CO2 to get energy. You can have it or the micro-organisms can. That's the truth whether you spout loaded phrases like "just say no" or not.
[quote=saltydog]2) Composition of fuels. Paper is overwhemingly wood pulp, made up of long chain carbohydrates ... [/quote]
How do you verify that the users of the stove will only repackage their foods in "good" wrappers and will not try to eliminate food residues with the stove? OK, I know... "Stoves don't burn food residues, people burn food residues." :)
[quote=saltydog]Now balance this against the cumulative effect of all those fossil hydrocarbon fuels we carry to fuel our Dragonflies and Jet Boils and what have we, I come up heavily on the side of the wood gas stove for conservation.[/quote]
The only true high ground is to just don't go. No one here is advocating that. The cars, trucks, buses and planes we use to get to our play areas far overwhelm fuel consumption on the trail. But we do need to do less harm while on the trail to avoid destroying the areas we chose to visit so those who come after us can visit them as well. (I might want to go back again, too.)
[quote=saltydog]Now to convince NPS and USFS . . . [/quote]
Hopefully they will never become that stupid.
Dale B. Dalrymple
