Um, its a steady state even without burying ... Archived Message
Posted by Shyaku on October 5, 2019, 7:49 pm, in reply to "Why Planting Trees Won't Save the Planet"
If carbon is temporarily sequestered in a tree and you increase the coverage of trees from, say, 80 hectares to 100 hectares, you have sequestered 25% more carbon. This is just a FACT Yes, the tree dies, and releases much of its carbon mass into the carbon cycle, but at the same time it recycles its blueprint into the same land area (footprint) via its genetic progeny. When I did biology at elementary school, we went out into the yard to find acorns. Norman Gray take note: This is what they are for. It you increase the mean carbon sequestered per hectare, even if it is in a steady state of life and death, you still sequester more. MOREOVER: On a slightly different but related topic - one of the biggest sequesters of all is seawater. When bacteria in seawater die, much of their carbon sinks to the bottom of the ocean. If you just stop consuming oil, seawater will gradually suck carbon out. Maybe not fast enough (I don't know) but at a substantial rate nonetheless. It seems Norman Gray has yet to enter elementary school. - Shyaku
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- Why Planting Trees Won't Save the Planet - scrabb October 5, 2019, 2:25 pm
- Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us* - mack October 5, 2019, 5:09 pm
- Old, wrong argument. And it says nothing about the sheep. [Sheep? Yes really!] - - Rhisiart Gwilym October 5, 2019, 5:47 pm
- Um, its a steady state even without burying ... - Shyaku October 5, 2019, 7:49 pm
- Apologies to all, but I agree with Dr Gray. Forests are a temporary repository.. - David Macilwain October 6, 2019, 2:07 am
|
|