- Re: Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us* Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on October 5, 2019, 6:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us*"
|
I think Mack did explain why scrabb . Because the sum total of long term carbon storage isn't just above the ground but below it. Industrialised agriculture (grain crops and that type of thing) has rapidly depleted the soil of that bulk organic matter, forest would quickly build it up again. So would just working on healthy soil, but forest is not just trees, even above the ground. So there is actually a lot more bulk above ground than is considered too. Trees are very good at sequestering general pollution too, heavy metals etc. They provide homes for a range of other flora and fauna. The arguments against are few, the arguments for are numerous. Folk arguing against planting trees don't really understand how ecosystems work (our global insect population for examine in dramatic decline which affects everything else too, and accounts for massive volumes of carbon in itself), and seems crazy to me that anyone would even devote the energy to such arguments.. Hope that helps a little. |