Planting Trees
Discussion
So China has announced it'll plant 70 billion trees by 2030 to help offset it's carbon footprint. It's been met with derision, but I've wondered for a while why, instead of trying to reduce CO2, we increase the planet's CO2 to O2 capability; more green stuff. 70 billion trees is a lot of trees, 7000 million. We have no shortage of seeds. A large oak tree drops millions of acorns.
So why not just plant trees everywhere. And grass, which is a great converter of CO2 to O2. Every verge, every new roof, trees and grass everywhere. Could it make a difference? Or is it too little too late?
So why not just plant trees everywhere. And grass, which is a great converter of CO2 to O2. Every verge, every new roof, trees and grass everywhere. Could it make a difference? Or is it too little too late?
thebraketester said:
I don't believe a word of it.
Also that is 23 million trees a day for 8 years. Not gonna happen
There's a lot of Chinese laborers. If they each plant one acorn/ conker they'll hit that target easily. Whether the trees grow/ survive is another matter.Also that is 23 million trees a day for 8 years. Not gonna happen
Edited by thebraketester on Tuesday 8th November 22:49
Edited by thebraketester on Tuesday 8th November 22:50
Biggy Stardust said:
Over the VERY long term trees' contribution to CO2 is zero.
Over the VERY long term carbon trapped by vegetation can be in turn trapped beneath sedimentary deposits, turning it into fossil carbon with no direct route to the atmosphere...unless you choose to dig or pump it out and burn it all over again.Given the levels of soil pollution in China I do have my doubts about how many of the trees they plant actually grow to anything like maturity.
They have been doing this for years with varying results. Would be better if they focused on environmental controls.
https://www.environy.co.uk/post/for-decades-china-...
https://www.environy.co.uk/post/for-decades-china-...
The problem isn't trees (though I've often wondered the same - I think they actually release CO2 in early growing phases so may not be that good a solution), the problem is people. We should remove more people. I have a list if it helps.
I think green architecture/building standards should be improved - requirement for carbon reduction/solar/green roofs, or investment in different technology for buildings.
I think green architecture/building standards should be improved - requirement for carbon reduction/solar/green roofs, or investment in different technology for buildings.
Biggy Stardust said:
When the trees die they either rot or are burnt, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Over the VERY long term trees' contribution to CO2 is zero.
I thought one of the reasons we're in the bother we are is because over millions of years, trillions of trees have died, been buried, and, along with other life, turned into fossil fuels. Which contributed zero co2 into the atmosphere until we extracted billions of tonnes of it over a couple of hundred years and burnt it. Over the VERY long term trees' contribution to CO2 is zero.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Biggy Stardust said:
When the trees die they either rot or are burnt, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Over the VERY long term trees' contribution to CO2 is zero.
I thought one of the reasons we're in the bother we are is because over millions of years, trillions of trees have died, been buried, and, along with other life, turned into fossil fuels. Which contributed zero co2 into the atmosphere until we extracted billions of tonnes of it over a couple of hundred years and burnt it. Over the VERY long term trees' contribution to CO2 is zero.
that's about the size of it.We've also cut down billions of trees and not replaced them while digging up all that stored carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere.
planting tree's is BS
plant 70Bil trees - objective met.
trees die as they are not correct for the environment or are planted in an area where it has little hope of surviving
A successful tree planted can take 20 years to meet its accepted CO2 absorption, by which point it will probably have died or been cut down for materials or to allow the land to be reused for more planting.
I cant remember where i saw it but i read something about a company planting and they were reusing the same plot of land within 3/4 years as the rate of success was so low. Apply that to 70Bil trees and in that's planting 35Billion twice
plant 70Bil trees - objective met.
trees die as they are not correct for the environment or are planted in an area where it has little hope of surviving
A successful tree planted can take 20 years to meet its accepted CO2 absorption, by which point it will probably have died or been cut down for materials or to allow the land to be reused for more planting.
I cant remember where i saw it but i read something about a company planting and they were reusing the same plot of land within 3/4 years as the rate of success was so low. Apply that to 70Bil trees and in that's planting 35Billion twice
Greta was on the beeb Vine show last week.
One 'caller' said she adored Greta.
She went on to spout how she was 'frightened to death' by climate change and the way we are heading, and so has spent the last 10 years...
'planting trees'.
She told Greta she couldn't wait to get to the shops to buy her new almost 500 page ...'book'.
The irony was totally and utterly lost on her.
One 'caller' said she adored Greta.
She went on to spout how she was 'frightened to death' by climate change and the way we are heading, and so has spent the last 10 years...
'planting trees'.
She told Greta she couldn't wait to get to the shops to buy her new almost 500 page ...'book'.
The irony was totally and utterly lost on her.
I think the whole idea of offsetting is BS.
You either believe you are causing harm, and should be cutting down consumption. Or you don't.
Offsetting one's conscience with schemes that have bugger all guarantee of offsetting anything is just a psychological play.
Who's going to count all these trees? What are the consequences of China not doing it?
You either believe you are causing harm, and should be cutting down consumption. Or you don't.
Offsetting one's conscience with schemes that have bugger all guarantee of offsetting anything is just a psychological play.
Who's going to count all these trees? What are the consequences of China not doing it?
PositronicRay said:
I'm an enthusiastic tree planter, but it's only part of what we should be trying to do. If we left suitable land long enough it'd revert back to forest anyway.
The planet will survive, life will evolve. The reality is we're just trying in vain to extend our brief stay on earth.
Poetic and true.The planet will survive, life will evolve. The reality is we're just trying in vain to extend our brief stay on earth.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff