Global Warming Start Planting Trees

[Roadkill]

Humans are being blamed for global warming. We have created the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming. We have created holes in the ozone layer by burning fossil fuels and everything else. The simplest solution would be for every person living in the world today to plant a tree. Trees are natures "Air Scrubbers" they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen in return. Although carbon dioxide is not the major factor leading to global warming the increase in oxygen into the atmosphere will help to dilute many of the carbon monoxides, sulfur and others. Over the past decades with urban sprawl and the deforestation of the Amazon trees have been cut down at alarming rates. I would venture to say the rate of deforestation worldwide and the rate of global warming would run very close to each other. I constantly read articles on conferences and scientific studies on the atmosphere debating who's to blame and causes but no real solutions or steps are being taken. We continue to build new homes striping the land of all the trees.

By burning fossil fuels we release carbon into the atmosphere that has been buried deep in the earth for millions of years. This has increased the carbon. Burning of coal has increased carbon and sulfur levels over the past decades. We have decreased the number of trees at the same alarming rates.

Our Governments legislatures have helped with regulations in air quality for factory emissions. Factories today in the US are putting fewer pollutants into the air but it is not enough. Many manufacturers faced the with overwhelming costs for meeting these regulations have closed their US plants and opened in China or third world countries with little of no regulations for air quality. Thus in a sense we are defeating the purpose. Third World Countries welcome the factories because it means growth for their economy as it undermines ours. What a web we have woven in just a few decades. Continue Article Global Warming

 

[Sandor]

Planting trees will do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2.

The tree gives it all back when torched in our woodstoves, or simply rotting on the forest floor.

Guess thats why its carbon nuetral.

 

[webbie]

Maybe Eric can give the stats, but I think we actually have MORE forest in this country than we had 100-150 years ago.....maybe a bunch more.

Every action has a consequence - we might have more trees now because we have plastic stuff.....or more trees because we have more steel stuff.

I wish I could find the pic, but EVERY tree in the state of WV was cut down - all in the span of just a few years. A pic shows it - stumps as far as you could see (which was 20+ miles)....actually, they missed 14 acres, which is now a state park.

But NOW, WV is probably 90% forested, instead of 0%. So some things are headed in a good direction.

 

[Todd]

I'm growing tired of the global warming debate. Seems like they blame everything on global warming. Scientist are still arguing on all the different causes and consequences. Last I heard the whole solar system is warming up. Mars is also losing polar ice.

 

[BrotherBart]

The ninety and hundred foot woods I live in were clear-cut when the WV stuff was going on. My house now sits on top of the spot where the sawmill once was located.

 

[webbie]

I'm growing tired of the global warming debate. Seems like they blame everything on global warming. Scientist are still arguing on all the different causes and consequences. Last I heard the whole solar system is warming up. Mars is also losing polar ice.

Of course, they are still arguing - folks are still arguing about whether the world was created in a week 10,000 years ago, or billions of years ago - and evolution. They are still debating as to whether we came from monkeys or from the rib of a certain dude.

And, it seems as if recent reports confirm that you and I have nothing to be concerned about from Global Warming - nor our kids:
See:
(broken link removed)

-------------
Two-thirds of the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas that can persist for centuries, has come in nearly equal proportions from the U.S. and Western European countries. These and other wealthy nations are investing in windmill-powered plants that turn seawater to drinking water, in flood barriers and floatable homes, in grains and soybeans genetically altered to flourish even in a drought.

In contrast, Africa accounts for less than 3 percent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel burning since 1900. Yet its 840 million people face some of the biggest risks from drought and disrupted water supplies, according to new scientific assessments. As oceans swell from melting ice sheets, crowded river deltas in southern Asia and Egypt, along with small island nations, are most at risk.

"Like the sinking of the Titanic, catastrophes are not democratic," said Henry Miller, a fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. "A much higher fraction of passengers from the cheaper decks were lost. We'll see the same phenomenon with global warming."
--------------


So, don't worry- we have a reservation on a life boat. But the rest of the world may not......

 

[begreen]

There are a lot more forests in the east than there were 150 years ago. Back then it was clear cut to build houses, commercial buildings and used as farmland. Where my house stands was clear cut 100 years ago to make ships. Then it was farmed for berries that supplied Seattle. Now it has second growth giving way to some tall doug firs returning. And now strawberries come from CA, FL and Chille and Peru.

 

[Sandor]

I'm growing tired of the global warming debate. Seems like they blame everything on global warming. Scientist are still arguing on all the different causes and consequences. Last I heard the whole solar system is warming up. Mars is also losing polar ice.

Todd, you just want to wear shorts in those Wisconsin winters. Come on, admit it. ;>

 

[Roadkill]

Planting trees will do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2.

The tree gives it all back when torched in our woodstoves, or simply rotting on the forest floor.

Guess thats why its carbon nuetral.

Planting trees will make a big difference. As the tree grows it absorbs Co2 and gives off oxygen. For the next 50+ years they will reduce carbon levels. In that time period we can work toward reducing emissions and green house gases. Within the next 50+ years our need for lumber will increase dramatically. With the age of our housing stock in both inner cities and the suburbs many homes will have to be rebuilt. If the trees are harvested before they die the carbon is trapped inside during the drying process.

There has been much talk about building huge “Air Scrubbers” which are man made trees. The problem with these is the cost of disposing the carbon. We can build a cleaner future for our grandchildren and generations beyond.

 

[Todd]

I'm growing tired of the global warming debate. Seems like they blame everything on global warming. Scientist are still arguing on all the different causes and consequences. Last I heard the whole solar system is warming up. Mars is also losing polar ice.

Todd, you just want to wear shorts in those Wisconsin winters. Come on, admit it. ;>

Well, I do when my Fireview is burnin! ;-P

 

[EatenByLimestone]

There are many more trees now than there were 150 years ago.

That said, I can't see any problems with planting more.

Matt

 

[detmurds]

I can't wait to get rid of some of this global freezing right now! Earth goes through weather pattern changes on a constant basis,..take the ice age for example.

 

[Harold]

I agree with the post, but most people living in industrialized societies would have to plant six trees to offset the carbon they produce.

True there are more trees in the US then there were 100 years ago, but it is also true that as we have reforested here in the US other countries have deforested, Brazil comes to mind as an example.

The world's population is much larger then is was 100 years ago, and the carbon footprint the each person produces is also much larger. I suspect people living on farms 100 or 150 years ago, burning wood as fuel for heating and cooking, and using animals as transportation, were very close to carbon neutral.

If a person was looking for a cheap solar powered low maintenance method of removing carbon from the atmosphere it would be hard to beat a tree.

I live in a rural area on Maryland, and when I built my home 15 years ago I left as many trees as possible on my 1.3 acre lot. I have never counted them, but I'm sure there are over 100 tress on my property, I feel pretty good about that now.

Here is a link to a carbon footprint calculator for any who are interested.

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/

 

[DriftWood]

Michigans lower peninsula was one huge forest 150 years ago. Today it is farm fields, and city sprawl, the hi-priced lots are in small wood lots that were to rocky or wet to farm. More trees would make a difference here especially in suburbia that last year was a farm field.

 

[Harley]

I'd go and plant some more trees today, but with all this global warming going on, if I tried to do it now, the trees I plant would freeze and die!

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Planting trees will do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2.

The tree gives it all back when torched in our woodstoves, or simply rotting on the forest floor.

Guess thats why its carbon nuetral.

actually , think beyond the carbon from burning wood, trees do not decide what co2 they convert, so they may just convert the co2 your car spit out on the way to work, or mine. i have planted twice the trees ive cut down (granted the species are more pleasing to me, apple trees, pear, peach, and some flowering dogwoods, but i have planted a couple pine as well) i guess im contradictory, a woodburner that is a borderline tree hugger as well.

 

[detmurds]

Here is some news on the originator of Global Warming himself!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

 

[northwinds]

Here's another take on global warming:

"...Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?..."


(broken link removed)