What if Everyone Actually Planted a Tree on Earth Day?
http://www.blogyoulikeahurricane.com...nted-tree.html
"The average tree absorbs somewhere around 4.5 kg of carbon dioxide per year. That may not sound like a lot. But if everyone on the planet planted a tree on Earth Day, there would be six billion more trees tomorrow than there was yesterday. Those trees would remove roughly 27 Million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually."
"The average tree absorbs somewhere around 4.5 kg of carbon dioxide per year. That may not sound like a lot. But if everyone on the planet planted a tree on Earth Day, there would be six billion more trees tomorrow than there was yesterday. Those trees would remove roughly 27 Million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually."
Comments
http://www.blogyoulikeahurricane.com...nted-tree.html
"The average tree absorbs somewhere around 4.5 kg of carbon dioxide per year. That may not sound like a lot. But if everyone on the planet planted a tree on Earth Day, there would be six billion more trees tomorrow than there was yesterday. Those trees would remove roughly 27 Million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually."
And how many trees would they cut down that year?
If everyone planted a tree on Earth day there wouldn't be anymore trees than there were the day before. Some would just be in a different place.
exactly.
If everyone planted a tree on Earth day there wouldn't be anymore trees than there were the day before. Some would just be in a different place.
So following that logic, if nobody plants a tree on Earth Day, there would be less trees than there were the day before. That's a good enough reason to plant a tree.. not just on Earth Day, but any or every other day in the year.
a) Not survive due to mismatch with local ecosystem
b) Take over local ecosystem and wipe out indigenous flora over time
Humans pretty much suck at ecomangement. Just back off, leave it alone, and it'll take care of itself most of the time. (cf, Zero Wildfire Tolerance policy - worst screwup in forest management evah.)
If you're going to plant a tree just to suck up CO2, go help a tree farm, or plant one in a public park that is already managed out the wazzoo. Really. Don't muck with the wild and natural places, or *drum roll* they're not wild or natural.
And they'd probably be in a place where they would...
a) Not survive due to mismatch with local ecosystem
b) Take over local ecosystem and wipe out indigenous flora over time
Humans pretty much suck at ecomangement. Just back off, leave it alone, and it'll take care of itself most of the time. (cf, Zero Wildfire Tolerance policy - worst screwup in forest management evah.)
Agreed. And that includes clearcutting and indiscriminate logging.
If you're going to plant a tree just to suck up CO2, go help a tree farm, or plant one in a public park that is already managed out the wazzoo. Really. Don't muck with the wild and natural places, or *drum roll* they're not wild or natural.
Yes. But surely surely, anyone who has the time, in an age where we have precious little of it, to bother buying a young tree, transporting it to a suitable site, digging a hole in the ground and planting it, would at least bother to make sure that it fits in with the local environment. After all, surely an environmental activist should know about these things... or..... am I being too generous?
But what do we do about this:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/10/443/
"Pave the Rainforest!"
Just kidding...
We'd all starve and die of thirst with 6 billion more trees...
"Pave the Rainforest!"
Just kidding...
Any US institution supplying environmental (or, I guess any) information is a suspect, and must be treated as such
Any US institution supplying environmental (or, I guess any) information is a suspect, and must be treated as such
Yep. Science is no longer apolitical in application or reporting.