Slashdot Mirror


Trees vs. Atmospheric Carbon: A Fight That Makes Sense?

StartsWithABang writes Yes, carbon levels in our atmosphere are rising, it's causing the Earth to warm and the climate to change, and our dependence on fossil fuels isn't going away anytime soon. Yet even if we ceased all carbon emissions today, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already high enough that it is likely to result in long-term catastrophic effects. But getting that carbon that's already in the atmosphere out of it isn't a pie-in-the-sky dream, it's a solvable problem that's as easy as planting a tree, something every one of us can help do with very little time, money and effort.

11 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. temporary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By default, when the tree dies, it will rot and return all that CO2 back to the air. So it's not really a solution unless you sequester the wood after the tree dies.

    1. Re:temporary by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think old forests are stable CO2-wise but a growing one is capturing CO2, and a shrinking one is releasing it - from fire and the rot going away.
      So I would think reforesting does work, albeit it cannot cope at all with human emissions at current levels either now or for coming centuries if they were to remain stable.

  2. Feh by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    something every one of us can help do with very little time, money and effort.

    Come back when you've got "very little" down to "none." And "every one of us" down to "someone else."

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  3. Re:Humans are oxygen sinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Starting with people too ignorant to see the two major parties are engaging in the thousands-of-years-old strategy of "divide and conquer" would be better.

  4. Dubious Article by xarragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The linked article is a plug for the Arbor Day Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day_Foundation) and comes complete with "inspirational music" from John Denver. There is no research or even coherent presentation of facts at all, but rather a thinly veiled attempt to get readers to join the foundation by emotional manipulation. All the usual suspects are here, touching music, stock photos of old and young saving the Earth together and the excuse that, "while the foundation might not be the solution to all problems, I feel good doing something, and so should you!". I read the TFA; now someone please explain what reason is for this article has to even be CLOSE to Slashdot. It has no scientific value, presents no research, does not inform the reader in any meaningful way and does not try to systematize the idea of capturing carbon through planting trees. I guess the domain name "medium.com" should be a warning in itself. My guess is that this is simply the new face of advertising; paid link-bait articles.

  5. Re: Humans are oxygen sinks by flyneye · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Both wings of the Repubmocrat party sing that song EVERY election. The majority buy it every time and we have had a Repubmocrat in office, sucking our lifeforce out, for more than a century now.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  6. Re:That's revolutionary by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    well, what it really is, is a good reason to cut down as many trees as you can and make buildings, furniture or whatever using the wood instead of letting it decompose - and then plant new trees. so tree farms to rescue! and landfills where paper diapers are buried.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  7. Re: Humans are oxygen sinks by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He DID bring "Hope and Change", just not to us. "Hope" for the the NSA to do whatever they want, and the "change" of making it all legal.

    You didn't think he was talking about you, me, and the rest of the peasants did you? HAHAHA

  8. Re:That's revolutionary by onepoint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You make a valid point. A large percentage of the carbon absorbed is placed back into the air (I would venture a guess of 80% since about 80% of the tree is above the ground). But this solution is a stop gap until other means of carbon reduction can be implemented. Also, if tree farming is used for crop's IE: wood products with a life span of 30 years, then we have locked in carbon for; growth time + usable life span of products.

    I, myself, have planted trees all my life, and my dream retirement goal is to create a forest somewhere near the Mississippi River. Lots of trees, all different breeds, providing a rich environment for wildlife. Nothing fancy, lot's of southern pine ( that can be used for telephone poles, or sunk in the mud to support buildings in Louisiana ). Some hardwoods, and if possible, some trees that grow very fast for natural wind breaks.

    With over 1 million users on Slashdot, I would venture that if we all planted 1 tree in our life time, the net effect would be in excess of 20 million tons of CO2 removed in our lifetime. While that is just a drop in the bucket, it's a start. I recently read that your basic tree removes in the range of 30 to 40 tons of co2 over 30 years. So I ask you all to plant a tree, think before traveling to find the most effective fuel route, recycle both sides of your paper if possible (I save 20 reams of paper every year that way) and use your bikes if you can.

    Thanks for your comment.

    --
    if you see me, smile and say hello.
  9. Premises by rs79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Yes, carbon levels in our atmosphere are rising,

    True.

    "it's causing the Earth to warm"

    True, but in such a tiny amount it's not measurable.

    "and the climate to change"

    This has never been shown.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  10. Re: Humans are oxygen sinks by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so perhaps two party systems no longer serve democracy.

    Most democracies don't have two party systems. Those that have proportional representation, or some other system that encourages multi-party democracy, don't seem to be doing any better. There is little reason to believe that the "two party system" is at the root of our problems.