Political Crossfire Forums

[Piotr]

It seems to make sense, doesn't it?

[Citizendave]

Not a bad idea at all. It leaves me wondering why the major oil companies and conservative think thanks haven't advanced this approach. I've seen some very disheartening statistics on the rapidity with which the rain forests are being leveled. We'd have to outpace the disappearance of that, and surpass the levels at which CO2 output is increasing.

I'll spend some time researching your concept.

Your suggestion is much better than the one from the DWEEB who suggested pumping water out of the sea onto antarctica to counter balance sea level rise. It's also much much better than the MEGA DWEEB who claimed that we have nothing to worry about regarding GW since humans will be able to just "beem" things here and there in 100 years or so.

(Way to go, Scotty!)

[Citizendave]

I could not find any site to support your idea that planting trees is the "entire" solution. But there were many who said that it is part of the solution.

Quote: Many companies and governments in the United States, Norway, Brazil, Malaysia, Russia, and Australia have initiated reforestation projects. In Guatemala, the AES Corporation, a U.S.-based electrical company, has joined forces with the World Resources Institute and the relief agency CARE to create community woodlots and to teach local residents about tree-farming practices. The trees planted are expected to absorb up to 58 million tons of carbon dioxide over 40 years.

[url] http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022_3/Global_Warming.html
[/url]




Empirically, I don't understand why growing trees would not be a possible definitive solution to GW. Clearly, there is some controversy. From my own personal knowledge, I'd say that when trees die and rot they give off methane.

Quote:
United Kingdom: Call to plant more trees despite global warming claims
Source: Copyright 2006, Western Mail
Date: January 17, 2006
MORE tree planting has been called for - despite claims that they contribute to global warming.

Conservation charity the Woodland Trust made the appeal following a study published in Nature magazine which suggests plants and trees account for a substantial amount of methane, a major greenhouse gas.

Woodland Trust chief executive Sue Holden says trees have been around for millennia and insists their contribution to regulating the planet's climate and biodiversity vastly outweigh any theoretical harm.

She said, "We should not stop planting trees. Trees are hugely beneficial not detrimental to the world in the face of accelerating climate change. They absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, help to dampen flood peaks, which are predicted to increase.

"They also help to regulate local temperatures and provide valuable habitats for plants and animals which will come under increased pressure from human induced climate change as well as providing high quality green space."
[url]
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=50963 [/url]


The quote below isn't going to make anyone here very happy. The damn computer simuations which predict wildly different results over the next 100 years......

Quote: By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: December 8, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 7 - In the effort to slow earth's rising temperatures, even a well-intentioned proposal could backfire, scientists said Wednesday.
One suggestion has been to grow more trees, which absorb carbon dioxide, the gas blamed for trapping heat. More trees mean more carbon dioxide removed from the air.
New computer simulations, however, indicate that establishing new forests across North America could provide a cooling effect for a few decades to a century, but that after that, they would lead to more warming.
"There's really no simple answer," said Ken Caldeira, a scientist at the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, Calif., who presented the research at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union here. "At least in this calculation, there is predicted to be a net warming effect."

[url] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/science/earth/08forest.html?ex=1291698000&en=5446aec09c1976b5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [/url]

[/url]

I'd like to congratulate Piotr for adding a point to this discussion which I've not seen before. It's nice to see a fresh perspective and a new debate point on this issue which many on this site deny is of global significance.

I cannot refute this approach to solving the real problem of human induced global warming. I'm beaten at a debate before it even began. Why are government regulations of CO2 needed? "Help me Rhonda (yeah get her out of my heart".......)

[Pzatchok]

Actually they have found that yes trees do tend to grow faster with higher consentrations os CO2 in the air. They also tend to use up O2 and give off CO2 when the sun is down. There is only a slight lean to the O2 production side not the big lean we used to think we got from trees..

[Piotr]

Very well; I really wasn't expecting anything like this, but good to see it's sparked some interest.

Regarding deforestation of the Amazon...I dunno, I think trees don't gather CO2 equally, but according to leaf surface area (which is through what CO2 passes through when absorbed- again, I don't know, I'm just working with what I do know); in other words, more leaf surface area, more CO2 absorption. So maybe certain trees with a lot of leaves, proportionately more than their size would indicate, could be more efficient than large swathes of the Amazonian rainforest in absorbing CO2, although maybe not. - I reckon those trees in particular are already very efficient in the task.

[Piotr]

Pzatchok wrote: Actually they have found that yes trees do tend to grow faster with higher consentrations os CO2 in the air. They also tend to use up O2 and give off CO2 when the sun is down. There is only a slight lean to the O2 production side not the big lean we used to think we got from trees..

Yep. They're more like huge reservoirs of CO2 than oxygen producers.

[combatbaby]

Planting trees is a lot better than some other ideas, like constructing giant mirrors in the upper atmosphere to deflect sunlight or by releasing dust particles in the air to mimic the cooling effects of a volcano eruption. if planting trees won't work for north american (temperate) temperatures, it could work for tropical temperatures..?

[Citizendave]

Quote: than some other ideas

Agree, like the idea that the planet is in fact not getting hotter. And the idea that humans have nothing to do with any increase (if there is any).

I know I'm asking you to speculate, but again I pose the question: if we can "tree plant" our way out of this situation, why haven't the major oil companies advanced this idea? After all, the leading scientists are running around saying that burning their product is ruining the earth.

Big Oil, Big Energy, and the Big Car companies have everything to gain and nothing to lose by advancing the "solution" proposed at the beginning of this thread. These are competitive, vibrant, extremely rich companies who hire some of the brightest minds available from top universities. They have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to protect profits.

Where is the ad campaign which says "Al Gore, LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS TO PLANT MORE TREES"?

Piotr?

combatbaby?

God?

Anyone?

[Piotr]

Citizendave wrote: Quote: than some other ideas

Agree, like the idea that the planet is in fact not getting hotter. And the idea that humans have nothing to do with any increase (if there is any).

I know I'm asking you to speculate, but again I pose the question: if we can "tree plant" our way out of this situation, why haven't the major oil companies advanced this idea? After all, the leading scientists are running around saying that burning their product is ruining the earth.

Big Oil, Big Energy, and the Big Car companies have everything to gain and nothing to lose by advancing the "solution" proposed at the beginning of this thread. These are competitive, vibrant, extremely rich companies who hire some of the brightest minds available from top universities. They have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to protect profits.

Where is the ad campaign which says "Al Gore, LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS TO PLANT MORE TREES"?

Piotr?

combatbaby?

God?

Anyone?

Hey, come on, this was a light-hearted thread anyhow, or so I thought; from what I see, global warming does seem to be happening; however, from what I can also see, a) the human factor is debatable , and b) nothing indicates that this sort of thing is abnormal in the course of the Earth's history (ie, warm periods, little ice ages, etc). I just thought that planting trees would make everybody happy.

Maybe the people involved don't generally like to make concessions to each other: maybe most oil companies dislike environmentalists and don't want to do anything for them out of spite, or vice-versa; Maybe most would think that planting trees would take too long; maybe there are no provisions for reforestation (outside of Europe) in today's laws; Maybe it wouldn't solve global warming in the long-run anyway (but there would have more green areas for a while, no?), as an article from one of your posts above indicated; maybe the idea has yet to catch on; maybe it makes so much sense that it makes relatively boring news; maybe it's so simple it's intellectually unappealing to many (giant mirrors in the stratosphere?);...

Ie: I have no idea. But that is pretty much speculation. Maybe the big oil, car and energy companies should indeed research and advance such an initiative!

[Citizendave]

Quote: this was a light-hearted thread

About GW? Har Har, and Charles Manson was a comedian. I don't know what other threads you inhabit on this site. The issue of GW is far more important than who can marry who, or who can enter the country and become a citizen. Expect to be held to a high standard. As I've said, at this point you are winning the debate.

Quote: the human factor is debatable

This is a debate site and I belong to it because anger inspires me to investigate this most important concern.

Quote: nothing indicates that this sort of thing is abnormal in the course of the Earth's history (ie, warm periods, little ice ages, etc).

Nothing accept the following:

Quote:
3 DECEMBER 2004 VOL 306 SCIENCE http://www.sciencemag.org/


Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have
used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions....

....[SKEPTICS] suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate
change. This is not the case.

....In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements......

.....The American Meteorological Society.... the American GeophysicalUnion....the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling .... The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision....

And of course, ongoing studies continue to confirm the consensus.

Quote: I just thought that planting trees would make everybody happy.


As I said, I'm taking your idea seriously. I expect I'll be e-mailing me of the nationally quoted experts with whom I've e-corresponded in the past. That is, unless I can shake your idea by my own research.

Quote: Maybe the people involved don't generally like to make concessions to each other:

Incorrect. Since 2003 the major American CO2 emiters have been voluntarily collecting data on CO2 output. These same companies were funding political oposition just a few years before.

Quote: Maybe ..... maybe .... Maybe ..... maybe .....maybe .... maybe .....


Look, as I said I appreciate and respect the premise of this thread. I'd also like to call on the regular skeptics and deniers to support Pilotr in the direction of this discussion. However, Pilotr, you should appreciate the severity of this issue, and back up your "maybes" with some links.

The American government spent 5 billion dollars researching GW last year, and we are poised to do some radical things. YOU CAN'T just wade in ankle deep. There's entirely too much at stake.

Quote: Maybe the big oil, car and energy companies should indeed research and advance such an initiative!

So send them an e-mail and keep us posted. Just bear in mind: mid level world pop. estimates are for 9 billion by 2050. America is 5% of world pop and we generate nearly 25% of world CO2 output. Plus, America is dead set on exporting our lifestyle to every corner of the earth.

But really, can you actually fathom that each one of these major companies, which employs tens of thousands of scientists, and not a single company ever hit upon your idea?

The financial motivations to find and advance your idea would be subtancial. Once CO2 regulations are established, they will be costly and they will likely never go away!

[perdidochas]

Pzatchok wrote: Actually they have found that yes trees do tend to grow faster with higher consentrations os CO2 in the air. They also tend to use up O2 and give off CO2 when the sun is down. There is only a slight lean to the O2 production side not the big lean we used to think we got from trees..

O2 production is immaterial in this. Phytoplankton are more important in terms of O2 production, however, they do little in terms of reducing CO2, as they have little biomass. The important thing for trees is the sequestration of CO2.

[combatbaby]

citizendave: :lol:

I guess I'd have to respond by pointing out that people like immediate "quick-fix" solutions... and we should keep in mind that planting trees isn't even certain to reduce the effects of global warming. Before anything happens, there ought to be a scientific consensus. Before big companies invest in this project.. they want to be certain that it will work.

[John Galt]

A golf course with it's luscious greens, or perhaps a pasture where cattle graze, converts more CO2 to O2 than trees do. In fact, three times as much per acre. Grass clippings unfoutently severely lessen this, but.... I still like grass. We need more grass for golfing. And beef raising.

[Piotr]

John Galt wrote: A golf course with it's luscious greens, or perhaps a pasture where cattle graze, converts more CO2 to O2 than trees do. In fact, three times as much per acre. Grass clippings unfoutently severely lessen this, but.... I still like grass. We need more grass for golfing. And beef raising.

But golf courses are impractical; they need constant maintenance and large amounts of water, and not only that: economically or socially, the demand for proportionately more golf courses doesn't seem to be high enough, at this point, to warrant such an expansion; unless, of course, you take and build gigantic, sadistic courses consisting only of par 5's.

Forests, on the other hand, can be self-sustaining; they can have their own ecosystem. But they do take longer to grow than golf courses, for example.

Open pastures...hm, I dunno. Large herds of cows ejecting large amounts of methane into the atmosphere seem to defeat the purpose.

Parks, on the other hand, sure, I'd be open for that. They seem somewhere in between between forests and golf courses: beautiful, part self-sustaining, part requiring maintenance, and mixing trees and open grass.

[Piotr]

combatbaby wrote: citizendave: :lol:

I guess I'd have to respond by pointing out that people like immediate "quick-fix" solutions... and we should keep in mind that planting trees isn't even certain to reduce the effects of global warming. Before anything happens, there ought to be a scientific consensus. Before big companies invest in this project.. they want to be certain that it will work.

Well, researching if it will work is part of the investment effort. Planting trees doesn't seem to be as extravagant as building huge mirrors in the sky (that still baffles me in a way), and certainly perhaps not as a quick fix, either.

[John Galt]

Piotr wrote: John Galt wrote: A golf course with it's luscious greens, or perhaps a pasture where cattle graze, converts more CO2 to O2 than trees do. In fact, three times as much per acre. Grass clippings unfoutently severely lessen this, but.... I still like grass. We need more grass for golfing. And beef raising.

But golf courses are impractical; they need constant maintenance and large amounts of water, and not only that: economically or socially, the demand for proportionately more golf courses doesn't seem to be high enough, at this point, to warrant such an expansion; unless, of course, you take and build gigantic, sadistic courses consisting only of par 5's.

Forests, on the other hand, can be self-sustaining; they can have their own ecosystem. But they do take longer to grow than golf courses, for example.

Open pastures...hm, I dunno. Large herds of cows ejecting large amounts of methane into the atmosphere seem to defeat the purpose.

Parks, on the other hand, sure, I'd be open for that. They seem somewhere in between between forests and golf courses: beautiful, part self-sustaining, part requiring maintenance, and mixing trees and open grass.

So, how it is now?

[Pzatchok]

I agree with the general Idea that planting trees would only help. If anything I can cut them down and make a house out of them latter. Untill then they can produce fruit for me to eat.
But why does everyone imediatly jump to the idea that Big Oil should be out doing it? Why not just call your local forest survice and ask them how you could help? I hear they even give out free trees for you to plant in your own yard.

Its a good idea but please people. You can beg and plead with big companies for years before you ever see anything done. Where as if you went out and planted your own tree of choise it would be finished in an afternoon. For far less money in the long run.

[Citizendave]

Unless there is a class action lawsuit forcing them to do it, any big effort to plant trees will be tax payer funded. The pattern of messing up the environment and having the tax payers fix the situation has been repeated many times.

[Citizendave]

combatbaby -

You laughed, and how very efficient of me, I did not even go through the effort to make a joke! Regarding my posts I will say this: I do not spin, and if someone stumped I acknowlege it.

Quote: Before anything happens, there ought to be a scientific consensus.


Very true. And yet when I argue GW with skeptics and deniers, even as I quote the experts, I am mindful that amatures can inform the GW debate.

Michael Crichton came out with his novel "State of Fear" a few years back, which claimed that GW isn't happening. I was not among those who said, "He isn't a scientist, therefore we shouldn't listen."

Having said that, we definitely have done enough research to justify to enacting laws to restrict CO2 output. What many skeptics and deniers don't seem to realize is that, even after such laws are passed, studies will continue. If we make a law which is too restrictive, we can change or repeal the laws.

[combatbaby]

Citizendave wrote: combatbaby -

You laughed, and how very efficient of me, I did not even go through the effort to make a joke! Regarding my posts I will say this: I do not spin, and if someone stumped I acknowlege it.


well i am that "awkward" person who laughs at inappropriate times... i guess that applies here when discussing global warming

Citizendave wrote: Quote: Before anything happens, there ought to be a scientific consensus.


Very true. And yet when I argue GW with skeptics and deniers, even as I quote the experts, I am mindful that amatures can inform the GW debate.

Michael Crichton came out with his novel "State of Fear" a few years back, which claimed that GW isn't happening. I was not among those who said, "He isn't a scientist, therefore we shouldn't listen."

Having said that, we definitely have done enough research to justify to enacting laws to restrict CO2 output. What many skeptics and deniers don't seem to realize is that, even after such laws are passed, studies will continue. If we make a law which is too restrictive, we can change or repeal the laws.

very true. but i wasn't clear. this kind of geoengineering to minimize global warming isn't just science anyway. engineers take in information from economists, analysts and others to come up with "feasible" solutions.. i guess what i meant to say was there should be a geoengineering consensus