Planting Trillions of Trees now will Cancel Out Decades of CO2 Emission because

dominatrixjane

Loves Spam
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Posts
865
Planting Trillions of Trees now will Cancel Out Decades of CO2 Emission because

say Scientists

There is enough room in the world’s existing parks, forests, and abandoned land to plant trillions of additional trees, which would have the CO2 storage capacity to cancel out decades of carbon dioxide emissions, according to a new analysis by ecologist Thomas Crowther and colleagues at ETH Zurich, a Swiss university.

Trees are “our most powerful weapon in the fight against climate change,” Crowther told The Independent. Combining forest inventory data from 1.2 million locations around the world and satellite images, the scientists estimate there are 3 trillion trees on Earth — seven times more than previous estimates. But they also found that there is abundant space to restore millions of acres of additional forests, not counting urban and agricultural land.

“There’s 400 gigatons [of CO2 stored] now in the 3 trillion trees,” Crowther said. “If we were to scale that up by Planting trillions of more trees, that’s in the order of hundreds of gigatons captured from the atmosphere – and anthropogenic emissions will completely be wiped out.”

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planti...out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find

yes


shouldn't we plant Trillions of trees now? because


there are more than 2000 species of trees


with edible fruits and nuts and berries


trees produce 21 Million calories per acre


trees produce oxygen and wealth and food and timber.



cows produce 1 Million calories per acre


cows produce Methane which is


30 times higher effect heat-trapping greenhouse gas.
 
Last edited:
lets look at it wisely.

E85 fuel wastes massive amounts of food crop. If I recall correctly 1 18 gallon tank of e85 used the amount of corn that would have fed a single adult for 3 months.

e85 requires 2 gallons of fossil fuel to make. distillation is an expensive bitch ya know. Then the E85 itself requires twice as much to do the same amount of work. So your burning twice as much gasoline to go the same distance to grammas house...

really saves the environment....

environmentally safer dry cleaning compound. It looked nice on paper. gave about 30% less pollution per ounce. But you gotta use twice as much chemical to get the same amount of clean. SO basically you increase pollution 50% in order to save the environment.

windmills, require massive amounts of fossil fuel energy to make and transport. Have an expected life of 10 years. By the time they provide the equivalent amount of "clean wind power" that it took to make them, offsets ya know. they need replacement.
Also the massive disturbance they create with the wind system/environment is massive. Downwind areas have had major changes in weather patterns after wind mill turbine farms are involved.

planting trees will require massive building of greenhouses, massive amounts of fossil fuel energy to grow them to a plantable age. massive amounts of energy to transport...
Then when the trees die it will cause a massive CO discharge.

Most scientists say that the massive forests that got buried decayed under ground and turned into normal C02 gas, and so on, and when the volcanoes went off and caused major earth quakes huge pockets of this GREEN HOUSE gas, pockets the size of LA were released in minutes and fried the environment into a tropical hell hole.
 
So you’re saying humans have been doing the right things all along, and still fucked up the planet.
 
basically.

You forget that the planet was never meant to have a large population on it. 1 billion is actually pushing what the planetary eco system can tolerate.

Look at history, every time the population got to be to much, something major happened and wiped out huge amounts of world population.

Sadly, the areas that have the highest population are the areas that can least afford to have a population.
 
basically.

You forget that the planet was never meant to have a large population on it. 1 billion is actually pushing what the planetary eco system can tolerate.

Look at history, every time the population got to be to much, something major happened and wiped out huge amounts of world population.

Sadly, the areas that have the highest population are the areas that can least afford to have a population.

Not strictly true.

At American rates of consumption we need 5 earth's
At European consumption we need 3 earth's

But the West over consumes, if resources were shared the earth can support plenty.
 
Not strictly true.

At American rates of consumption we need 5 earth's
At European consumption we need 3 earth's

But the West over consumes, if resources were shared the earth can support plenty.

those consumptionlevels are fucking way off.

you forget, consumption levels include the huge shit loads of food were sending over seas to feed Somalia, etc.
 
For every one we plant the Malaysians and the Brazilians knock down two.

Hey boy, the trees you sell, going to China for pulp?
 
Back
Top