TERRESTRIAL DETRITUS AND THE CARBON CYCLE 327 



Ekdahl: The question is: how does lumber, as a diversion from detritus, 

 compare with paper pulp as a diversion from detritus in terms of volume or 

 weight production? 



Reiners: I really do not have a good idea of what the relative proportions 

 might be. My initial guess would be 50—50, at least for Europe and the United 

 States, but, for the world as a whole, I should think that the amount going into 

 pulp would decline relative to lumber. 



Allen: This question applies to the previous paper also. What percentage of 

 forest production is currently going into building material, and what is the 

 turnover time of the carbon in this pool? This diversion of carbon from natural 

 detritus pools could be considered a "detritus" pool itself. 



Reiners: I do not have the answer. We are diverting lumber from normal 

 detritus pools to another kind of detritus pool which, I would guess, is turning 

 over more slowly. 



Olson: We are getting closer to the question of whether man can or will have 

 an effect. I take it that there is already an answer, even if the real coefficients are 

 somewhat different from those you used. I wonder if you have some projections 

 on what should be done next in inquiring into the sorts of human decisions and 

 questions of policy that are involved in these methods. 



Reiners: I guess I am rather conservative in saying what is next. I really 

 would like to see a better integration of knowledge and better data before I 

 would personally be willing to play a role in saying something political about 

 this. I am hesitant to say how serious all these things are until we get better 

 information than we have now. 



Olson: That does not seem very conservative — to do nothing when the 

 situation is changing very rapidly is not a conservative thing to do. 



