@enigmaT120: I meant grass is more efficient at processing CO2 as a fuel source for itself. Therefore, it is less efficient at processing CO2 as a waste product for us. So, if you are acting in stewardship of 30 acres of woodlands that would likely otherwise be converted to parking lot or corn field than you might assign yourself a CO2 processing credit equivalent to NOT driving about 80 cars!!! (So, you are the winner off the Riot for Austerity contest that is not really a contest!!! So, shhhh, keep it on the down low and act all humble like.) IOW, you are an oxygen farmer.
Fuel is not equal to fuel - at least if we consider carbon dioxide emissions. Burning of lignite emits nearly 100 % more carbon dioxide with respect to the energy content than burning of natural gas. Even natural fuels such as wood or peat have high specific emissions, if they are not used sustainable. Hence, deforestation has a high impact on climate change. On the other hand, if we only use as much wood as can grow again, it is carbon dioxide neutral because it binds as much carbon dioxide during growing as is emits during burning.
If fuels are used for electricity generation, carbon dioxide emissions increase with the reciprocal of the power plant efficiency. E.g. if a power station with an efficiency of 34 % burns coal, it emits 1.0 kg carbon dioxide for generating one kilowatt hour of electricity.
Changing to less carbon dioxide intensive fuels reduces the emissions and contributes to climate protection in the short-term. For a long-term climate protection the only alternative are zero-carbon energy resources such as sustainable-used biomass and other renewable types of energy.
http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv ... ndex_e.php
Therefore, since you have stewardship of 30 acres, which I assume you replant, burning wood for providing some heat with some sort of modern-design efficient stove is the best choice. OTOH, if you were running a shoe factory and you were concerned with meeting emissions regulations in conjunction with terms of Paris Agreement then your best choice might be natural gas.
Michigan has a high percentage of forest land currently, but most of the trees are less than 100 years old, because the state was almost completely clear cut for timber by the turn of the 20th century. The northern part of the state was not great as farmland, so the trees were replanted, and the U.P is once again about as close to howling wilderness as you are going to find anyplace on the planet (just like how parts of Detroit are now almost indistinguishable from some decrepit scrub woods rural burg in Georgia, unless you look up and see the buildings nearby.) If you consider that the population of the United States is 4X greater now than in 1900, you can see that there might be some issues with sustainable management of timber in a post-petroleum future.
In "Systems Theory: A Primer", Meadows notes:
Escalation in environmentally responsible lifestyles can lead to rigid and unnecessary puritanism.
I don't like it when human carbon footprint is uttered with the same tone as "born in sin", and plastic jugs recycled are counted like beads on a rosary. What I like is knowing where all the stuff (oxygen, sea salt caramel cookies, coffee mug, water in my toilet) I like to have sometimes comes from and where all the stuff I don't like to have sometimes (stinky stuff in my toilet, cracked coffee mug, cardboard box cookies came in, carbon dioxide I breath out) goes. I don't like it when I can only go 1 or 2 steps out on my lifestyle systems diagram before I have to draw a big cloud and label it
MAGIC!!