To combat global warming we all think of reducing CO2 emissions. But why not planting more trees?

Question

To combat global warming we all think of reducing CO2 emissions. But why not planting more trees?

Answer 1

the thing is .............. ppl r not concerned abt the environment anymore...............they r interested in their materialistic life ...........and the ppl r more bothered in felling trees rather than planting them.........plants absorb the CO2 from the air which will reduce global warming but .................. for that u need unity and a vision to save the nature and environment which the ppl of this generation llack............they r busy wid their own works........... no one is so free even to organize such things as planting treees.............. even if i wud ask U to do this.......... u will not do it............... I BET.

Answer 2

Environmentalists will never support that idea. It's too simple and too logical. *LOL* They want all of us to walk everywhere we go and live in unlighted caves.

Answer 3

I just saw a news report not too long ago about how The People's Republic of China has initiated a massive tree planting campaign to help offset co2 but more imperative to them right now is planting trees to help stymie the growth of the their desert areas that cause massive dust storms across the country.

I for one worry about the effects of increased use of biofuels mean to the world's forests like the rain forest in Brazil. These farmers cut down large swaths of forest for crops and they are not replanting since it is not for lumber. I wonder what the Arbor day foundation says about the success of tree planting in the developing world.

Answer 4

While trees do suck in CO2, we cannot possibly plant enough trees to combat the amount of carbon man emits. Also, its unlikely developing countries would plant trees. More likely they are cutting down the ones they have for land development.

Answer 5

Sure! That's a great idea! If every person in the world planted one tree, the Earth would be saved from global warming.

Answer 6

The amount of Carbon in Carbon Dioxide released by human activity since the Industrial Revolution is equal to that in one third of the entire world's biomass.



This would mean reforesting most of the planet, and there is not the time nor the resources, nor the space. Many deforested areas will not support regrowth at such magnitude on such a short timescale, and mush of this area is now used for human habitation and farming.

Answer 7

true!

also note: the oceans absorb the excess CO2 that's in our atmosphere too.

We should be more concerned about POLLUTION and not green house gases!

There are plenty of other toxins that will effect us sooner than the green house gases???

Remember, methane is second biggest contributor to Green house gases, and that is given off NATURALLY by animals.... (mcDonalds' cattle farms!)

Answer 8

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.



Plant trees in vast areas, why not - its east to say, hard to do... its been thought of a long time ago, and yet no ones doing it.

Answer 9

Who is going to go and dig little holes and put saplings in them.Who has enouff concern for this.Have you found a machine that can plant plant and plant and a machine that can also care for baby trees they need water.Who will go out to nurture saplings--NOWUN.

Answer 10

Trees are nice; I like them, let's plant as many as we can...BUT if you really want to reduce CO2 levels then look to: IRON-CATALYZED PLANKTON RESTORATION. Marine phytoplankton have annually absorbed and fixed nearly half of all planetary CO2 emissions or approximately 50 billion tons/year. Seeding plankton poor regions in the South Atlantic Is the least expensive and most envorimentaly benefical strategy. The effects are dramatic one pound of iron dispersed over an expanse of sea water will fix 100,000 pounds of Carbon... This is not a typo! Recent marine trials confirm that one kilogram (2.2 lbs) of fine iron particles can reliably generate well over 100,000 kilograms of plankton biomass this biomass in turn serves as the base of a food chain that provides for marine life in the seas. The size of the iron particles is critical, however, and particles of several micrometres or less seem to be ideal both in terms of sink rate and bioavailability. Particles this small are not only easier for cyanobacteria and other phytoplankton to incorporate, the churning of surface waters keeps them in the euphotic or sunlit biologically active depths without sinking for long periods of time. There have already been small scale demonstrations of this method and the results comform to the predicted levels of carbon sequesteration anticipated. This method DWARFS all other proposed carbon fixation methods and is truly a win/win for all concerned. Current estimates of the amount of iron required to sequester 3 gigatons ( 1 giggaton = 1 billion tons) of CO2 range widely, from approximately two hundred thousand tons/year to over 4 million tons/year. Even in the latter worst case scenario, this only represents about 16 supertanker loads of iron and a projected cost of less than €20 billion. Considering penalties for Kyoto non-compliance in just the EU alone, will reach €100/ton CO2 in 2010 and the annual value of the global carbon credit market is projected to exceed €1 trillion by 2012, even the most conservative estimate still portrays a very feasible and inexpensive strategy to offset half of all industrial emissions. What I like about this soulution is that it establishes a food chain in a region of the Ocean that's devoid of any. Sequesters massive amounts of CO2 without some huge bloated U.N 'Nanny State' agency, that will just try and to undermine our way of life. If People are serious about sequestering CO2 more than they are advancing a One World Goverment via the U.N. then this process should have no trouble being implemented.

Answer 11

1) According to an article I read in the American Chemical Society's journal "Environmental Technology" it would take an area the size of Texas to be replanted on a yearly basis for 30 years to negat warming.That's alot of trees.



2) Digging all those holes releases carbon into the atmosphere. Soil is a great source of carbon sequestration and I know that over time the carbon in a tree would outweigh carbon in the soil.



3) Politicians support the people, who in turn vote. Do you really think politicians will say, "No. No more suburban sprawl. I am going to designate this as protected forest." It's hard enough to protect land as it is.



4) Forestry, at the industrial level, requires alot of specialized machinery. These gasguzzlers will release carbon as they truck seeds around.



5) Remediating the problem does not rid you of the problem. ITs best to directly address it.

Answer 12

Carbon in the atmosphere is not a problem, and the alarmists have been scamming us over this for a while now. In fact, the warmest year in the last warming period was 1998. Then the world stopped getting warmer. Global warming ended. The alarmists though will tell you the world is still getting warmer. That, like everything else they tell us, is wrong. No drastic measures are needed on CO2, or anything else.

Answer 13

There actually is a section in the Kyoto Protocol that covers this exact topic (although most of us here- Canadians and Americans- have countries that have signed on and aren't going to honour it or have not signed on period). Planting more trees is encouraged under this agreement; and there is also a section where other countries can get 'credit' so to speak for helping other countries replenish their forest stocks.

Answer 14

let's see,

in higher latitudes, where global warming is supposedly a problem, the tree most often planted is some type of pine.

pine trees insulate the ground and keep it warm.

kind of self defeating, don't you think?

Answer 15

Don't worry about it, man. Jesus is coming back soon. By the time all the trees are gone and CO2 is overpowering the earth, Jesus will give us all eternal paradise. I don't know how you can worry so much, eternal paradise sounds mighty swell to me.

Answer 16

becausepolotics are ful of crap