Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Climate Change & The Environment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Climate Change & The Environment Discuss One Trillion Trees at the General Discussion; In addressing manmade global warming the arguments tend to be related to the unprecedented amount of CO2 we're releasing into ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:04 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,421
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,837 Posts
Default One Trillion Trees

In addressing manmade global warming the arguments tend to be related to the unprecedented amount of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere in using carbon based fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. We need to take a step back and also acknowledge that there's a second component to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and that the deforestation that's reduced nature's ability to recycle carbon released into the atmosphere and return it to a solid state.

Increased CO2 PLUS deforestation has resulted in the dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 that that contributes to global warming. Scientists haven't lost sight of that fact and point to reforestation to combat manmade CO2 levels.

Quote:
Want to help save the world from climate change? Then grab some seeds, or some seedlings, and start planting trees like there's no tomorrow.

At least 1 trillion of them, and fast.

That may sound like a lot of trees, but the Earth has room for their gnarled bows and branches. In a new study that excluded cities and agricultural areas, researchers found that the planet has nearly 3.5 million square miles (9 million square kilometers) to spare for trees. Such newly planted trees could cut carbon (a part of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere by nearly 25%, bringing it down to levels not seen for nearly 100 years, the scientists said.
https://news.yahoo.com/want-fight-cl...160700321.html

All plants breakdown the CO2 in the atmosphere into carbon for the fiber of the plant while releasing the oxygen but trees, with the huge amount of mass per square foot of land, pull far more carbon from the atmosphere than other plants like grass. Deforestation, as much as increased releases of CO2 into the atmosphere, have raised the CO2 levels to well over 400 ppm. Planting one trillion trees can reduce that level back down to about 300 ppm taking us back to the levels of 100 years ago.

Many governments (members of the Paris Accords) have already been doing this and lessons are being learned as we move forward.

Quote:
Ireland is ramping up its response to the climate crisis by planting forests – lots of forests. East, west, north, south, the plan is to plant forests, the more the better.

With enough trees, goes the hope, Ireland can compensate for many of the cows, vehicles and fossil-burning power plants that make it one of Europe’s worst climate offenders.

From having just 1% forest cover in 1900, Ireland now has 11%, covering 770,000 hectares. It has just committed to planting 8,000 more hectares each year to reach 18% coverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ets-resistance

Ireland selected Sitka spruce to plant because it's a fast growing tree that grows very well in the Ireland and it can be harvested for wood when it reaches maturity so that it generates income as well as removing the CO2. The problem is with the single species "tree farm" approach that makes for a dark and gloomy forest as well as limiting the wildlife that can live in the forest. They're changing their approach and beginning to provide for more biodiverse forestation that's more in line with how nature works. Some trees like oaks take a long time to grow and don't remove as much CO2 per year but they make for a healthier and more human friendly forest and need to be a part of the reforestation plan.

We often hear about the "carbon tax" that would be imposed on large CO2 producers and those funds would be used to subsidize "green energy" producers. Many object to this idea for numerous reasons (I'm one of them). The difference here would be that money could be collected for the high CO2 producers that would be dedicated to a "tree planting fund" to offset the CO2 that is being pumped into the atmosphere. In short the industries that benefit financially by creating the problem would also be the industries that help fund the solution to the problem. The forests themselves would, in time, also be generating revenue to providing funding for the planting.

It's an interesting cost effective scientific proposition to address the problems of manmade global warming.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2019, 01:31 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,039
Thanks: 9,270
Thanked 12,692 Times in 6,987 Posts
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
In addressing manmade global warming the arguments tend to be related to the unprecedented amount of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere in using carbon based fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. We need to take a step back and also acknowledge that there's a second component to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and that the deforestation that's reduced nature's ability to recycle carbon released into the atmosphere and return it to a solid state.

Increased CO2 PLUS deforestation has resulted in the dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 that that contributes to global warming. Scientists haven't lost sight of that fact and point to reforestation to combat manmade CO2 levels.


https://news.yahoo.com/want-fight-cl...160700321.html

All plants breakdown the CO2 in the atmosphere into carbon for the fiber of the plant while releasing the oxygen but trees, with the huge amount of mass per square foot of land, pull far more carbon from the atmosphere than other plants like grass. Deforestation, as much as increased releases of CO2 into the atmosphere, have raised the CO2 levels to well over 400 ppm. Planting one trillion trees can reduce that level back down to about 300 ppm taking us back to the levels of 100 years ago.

Many governments (members of the Paris Accords) have already been doing this and lessons are being learned as we move forward.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ets-resistance

Ireland selected Sitka spruce to plant because it's a fast growing tree that grows very well in the Ireland and it can be harvested for wood when it reaches maturity so that it generates income as well as removing the CO2. The problem is with the single species "tree farm" approach that makes for a dark and gloomy forest as well as limiting the wildlife that can live in the forest. They're changing their approach and beginning to provide for more biodiverse forestation that's more in line with how nature works. Some trees like oaks take a long time to grow and don't remove as much CO2 per year but they make for a healthier and more human friendly forest and need to be a part of the reforestation plan.

We often hear about the "carbon tax" that would be imposed on large CO2 producers and those funds would be used to subsidize "green energy" producers. Many object to this idea for numerous reasons (I'm one of them). The difference here would be that money could be collected for the high CO2 producers that would be dedicated to a "tree planting fund" to offset the CO2 that is being pumped into the atmosphere. In short the industries that benefit financially by creating the problem would also be the industries that help fund the solution to the problem. The forests themselves would, in time, also be generating revenue to providing funding for the planting.

It's an interesting cost effective scientific proposition to address the problems of manmade global warming.
It is a well known scientific fact that new growth is the best method of absorbing free CO2. It is why greenhouse operators pump it into their growing shed. And why wheat crops in Canada are more bountiful than ever. There is simply more free carbon to consume and grow into plant material.

A well known scientific fact, you have ignored completely.

Apparently you were not paying attention that day in science class.

One should not speak of science when at the same time, failing to use it properly. Deforestation? Old growth timber does not consume CO2 at the same rate per acre as New growth. This even if that new growth is agriculture for food crops or new forests. The honest science doesn't lie.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-rai...th-study-finds
Deforestation is acceptable if reforestation efforts are employed.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 07-10-2019 at 01:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2019, 02:45 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 12,897
Thanks: 10,956
Thanked 9,119 Times in 5,669 Posts
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
It is a well known scientific fact that new growth is the best method of absorbing free CO2. It is why greenhouse operators pump it into their growing shed. And why wheat crops in Canada are more bountiful than ever. There is simply more free carbon to consume and grow into plant material.

A well known scientific fact, you have ignored completely.

Apparently you were not paying attention that day in science class.

One should not speak of science when at the same time, failing to use it properly. Deforestation? Old growth timber does not consume CO2 at the same rate per acre as New growth. This even if that new growth is agriculture for food crops or new forests. The honest science doesn't lie.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-rai...th-study-finds
Deforestation is acceptable if reforestation efforts are employed.
While I would argue the 'deforestation' aspect, I agree on the old growth/new growth aspect. Good article, thank you!
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2019, 05:26 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,039
Thanks: 9,270
Thanked 12,692 Times in 6,987 Posts
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
While I would argue the 'deforestation' aspect, I agree on the old growth/new growth aspect. Good article, thank you!
Deforestation & reforestation , properly done is actually good management of the resource. Old growth may be pristine, pretty and romantic, but much of it is a wasted use of land. Little carbon recapture happens in virgin forests. One thing deforesting/reforesting does is cut and remove old wood. Material which is not burned but put into structures. Thus the CO2 capture remains intact. The new growth is therefore capturing more.

I own 80 acres of what was once old growth timberland. It was select cut but done poorly. One reason we got it cheap. I have spent ten years aiding in the reforestation. White pines, white oaks, shag bark hickory, black walnut. Blackberry bushes and native grasses.

As of now the creek runs clear again, all year. The grass is waist high in the old log marshalling yard. Blackberries and now Elderberry bushes are spontaneously growing every where. So we know we are making progress in restoring the original environment. We do not plan, in our lifetime, to harvest the timber. But at some point it is shepherd wise to do so.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 07-10-2019 at 05:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:07 AM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 81,328
Thanks: 55,442
Thanked 26,269 Times in 18,795 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
In addressing manmade global warming the arguments tend to be related to the unprecedented amount of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere in using carbon based fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. We need to take a step back and also acknowledge that there's a second component to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and that the deforestation that's reduced nature's ability to recycle carbon released into the atmosphere and return it to a solid state.

Increased CO2 PLUS deforestation has resulted in the dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 that that contributes to global warming. Scientists haven't lost sight of that fact and point to reforestation to combat manmade CO2 levels.


https://news.yahoo.com/want-fight-cl...160700321.html

All plants breakdown the CO2 in the atmosphere into carbon for the fiber of the plant while releasing the oxygen but trees, with the huge amount of mass per square foot of land, pull far more carbon from the atmosphere than other plants like grass. Deforestation, as much as increased releases of CO2 into the atmosphere, have raised the CO2 levels to well over 400 ppm. Planting one trillion trees can reduce that level back down to about 300 ppm taking us back to the levels of 100 years ago.

Many governments (members of the Paris Accords) have already been doing this and lessons are being learned as we move forward.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ets-resistance

Ireland selected Sitka spruce to plant because it's a fast growing tree that grows very well in the Ireland and it can be harvested for wood when it reaches maturity so that it generates income as well as removing the CO2. The problem is with the single species "tree farm" approach that makes for a dark and gloomy forest as well as limiting the wildlife that can live in the forest. They're changing their approach and beginning to provide for more biodiverse forestation that's more in line with how nature works. Some trees like oaks take a long time to grow and don't remove as much CO2 per year but they make for a healthier and more human friendly forest and need to be a part of the reforestation plan.

We often hear about the "carbon tax" that would be imposed on large CO2 producers and those funds would be used to subsidize "green energy" producers. Many object to this idea for numerous reasons (I'm one of them). The difference here would be that money could be collected for the high CO2 producers that would be dedicated to a "tree planting fund" to offset the CO2 that is being pumped into the atmosphere. In short the industries that benefit financially by creating the problem would also be the industries that help fund the solution to the problem. The forests themselves would, in time, also be generating revenue to providing funding for the planting.

It's an interesting cost effective scientific proposition to address the problems of manmade global warming.
What ever happened to Arbor Day?
__________________
@StephenKing
Sometimes I feel like screaming, "Everybody knows that Trump is as crooked as a broken nose and as dumb as a fencepost. Just quit sh*tting around and get him the f*ck out of there."
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2019, 06:53 AM
Jaaaman's Avatar
Outing liberal stupidity
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: South Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 596
Thanks: 1,645
Thanked 397 Times in 259 Posts
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
What ever happened to Arbor Day?
National Arbor Day is celebrated every year on the last Friday in April; it is a civic holiday in Nebraska. Other states have selected their own dates for Arbor Day. Many states observe Arbor Day on different dates throughout the year based on best tree planting times in their area. The customary observance is to plant a tree. On the first Arbor Day, April 10, 1872, an estimated one million trees were planted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jaaaman For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:52 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,421
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,837 Posts
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
It is a well known scientific fact that new growth is the best method of absorbing free CO2. It is why greenhouse operators pump it into their growing shed. And why wheat crops in Canada are more bountiful than ever. There is simply more free carbon to consume and grow into plant material.

A well known scientific fact, you have ignored completely.

Apparently you were not paying attention that day in science class.

One should not speak of science when at the same time, failing to use it properly. Deforestation? Old growth timber does not consume CO2 at the same rate per acre as New growth. This even if that new growth is agriculture for food crops or new forests. The honest science doesn't lie.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-rai...th-study-finds
Deforestation is acceptable if reforestation efforts are employed.
The "trillion tree" goal would predominately be replacing areas where old growth forests once existed but were clear cut for financial gain in the past.

Of course old growth forests provide benefits other than just consuming CO2 and they still consume a lot of CO2. Old growth forests create an ecosystem providing habitat for many species of animals that only live in old growth forests. Old growth forests even effect the weather often drawing rain into the hills and mountains that otherwise wouldn't have that moisture being deposited on the land.

We've already destroyed enough old growth forest in the United States and we don't have any need to destroy more. Instead of clear-cutting that destroys the forest we can selectively harvest to retain the old growth forest while still profiting from the wood and also planting new trees that will add to the CO2 absorption of the forest.

Even older trees consume a lot of CO2 and it's often more than the new trees recently planted.

I have two 40 year old pine trees next to my house and while a pine tree is an evergreen it grows and discards pine needles and pine cones at an incredible rate. All of those discarded pine needles and pine cones used CO2 from the atmosphere to grow.

Every pound of discarded plant material from a tree pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere and the "tonnage" of discarded plant material in a forest will out-weigh the growth in new trees. I'm sure there's a balance point but it's not as easy to determine as some might like it to be. What we do know is that if we want more CO2 removed from the atmosphere then plant more trees. It might be a trillion trees or it might be two trillion trees but if we plant enough of them they will reduce the atmospheric CO2 back to where it was 100 years ago when it was below 300 ppm.

Just keep planting baby!
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:00 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,421
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,837 Posts
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaaaman View Post
National Arbor Day is celebrated every year on the last Friday in April; it is a civic holiday in Nebraska. Other states have selected their own dates for Arbor Day. Many states observe Arbor Day on different dates throughout the year based on best tree planting times in their area. The customary observance is to plant a tree. On the first Arbor Day, April 10, 1872, an estimated one million trees were planted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day
Interesting. I wonder how many trees were cut down in 1872? We can only count the net gain in the number of trees and not the replacements.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:41 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,039
Thanks: 9,270
Thanked 12,692 Times in 6,987 Posts
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The "trillion tree" goal would predominately be replacing areas where old growth forests once existed but were clear cut for financial gain in the past.

Of course old growth forests provide benefits other than just consuming CO2 and they still consume a lot of CO2. Old growth forests create an ecosystem providing habitat for many species of animals that only live in old growth forests. Old growth forests even effect the weather often drawing rain into the hills and mountains that otherwise wouldn't have that moisture being deposited on the land.

We've already destroyed enough old growth forest in the United States and we don't have any need to destroy more. Instead of clear-cutting that destroys the forest we can selectively harvest to retain the old growth forest while still profiting from the wood and also planting new trees that will add to the CO2 absorption of the forest.

Even older trees consume a lot of CO2 and it's often more than the new trees recently planted.

I have two 40 year old pine trees next to my house and while a pine tree is an evergreen it grows and discards pine needles and pine cones at an incredible rate. All of those discarded pine needles and pine cones used CO2 from the atmosphere to grow.

Every pound of discarded plant material from a tree pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere and the "tonnage" of discarded plant material in a forest will out-weigh the growth in new trees. I'm sure there's a balance point but it's not as easy to determine as some might like it to be. What we do know is that if we want more CO2 removed from the atmosphere then plant more trees. It might be a trillion trees or it might be two trillion trees but if we plant enough of them they will reduce the atmospheric CO2 back to where it was 100 years ago when it was below 300 ppm.

Just keep planting baby!
You talk like we are still clearcutting vast tracks of old growth timber , abandoning the area and moving on. This is not 1850 but 2019. Nobody does that here anymore.

or in Canada.

As for virginal old growth forests, which now represent less than 5% of forests in our nation, they produce 1/11th of the CO2 encapsulation of new forests.
Your claim that if we just plant trees in stripped and abandoned areas it will reduce CO@ back to levels of 100 years ago has little merit. Much less any proof.

Where are these vast areas?

I travel the nation all the time and have seen none of them. What I have seen is poorly managed forests that were burned to the ground. A situation that will worsen the more we hug trees instead of properly managing them.

Cut a 40 year old pine tree and you have up to 20,000 lbs of material containing encapsulated carbon. Put the material to use in houses, barns and furniture. It remains encapsulated.
Plant new trees on that same ground, manage them so they do not catch fire and burn. Within 40 years you will have again captured that much CO2 in to the wood.

California has proven time and time again we cannot let forests left to fend for themselves naturally. Especially if we allow people to visit and even live in them.

I can understand regulation of forest products companies aimed at forcing better husbandry of the resources. Most successful ones already do by planting and caring for trees and wild life so they have product to convert twenty, thirty, forty years from now. But a government program of just planting a million or a trillion trees is hardly the best, most economical and effective way to do so. Especially since it is already being done by the private sector for their own gain.

When will Liberals understand the "for their own gain." is the best motivation for achieving success. It is a resource which needs to be managed, not discouraged, by our government.

BTW, Your pine needles decompose. And when they do, they release CO2. And methane!!! jus' sayin'
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:51 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,039
Thanks: 9,270
Thanked 12,692 Times in 6,987 Posts
Default Re: One Trillion Trees

Here's a fun factoid about trees.

The State of IOWA has about 56,000 square miles of the most fertile soil in the nation. Why then did the settlers by pass it and move on all the way to Oregon, Idaho, Washington state?

Because it had few trees. So, in the early 1800's, they assumed the soil was infertile.

Been there lately?
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
one, trees, trillion

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0