'Mind-Blowing' Fix for Climate Change: Plant Billions of Trees

So why not. I have read that young trees absorb CO2 just like when farmers pump in CO2 into a greenhouse to get their young plants to thrive and grow. I also read that when a tree or any other plant reach a certain age they begin to out gas CO2. I am no expert on this but like the oceans being a CO2 sink, they become acidic whereas a tree can handle it. I am all for this Thoughts?

You can read the article here:

'Mind-Blowing' Fix

The climate is changing and growing trees as they do in China has not deter the yellow sands going to Japan and Canada and America.
The climate has and always will change, it is the wish of Mother Nature to balance life.
Can you folks send me now some money for telling you all the truth.
I'm piss ass poor in this country.

a reply to: Waterglass

For one thing I doubt it could keep up with the pace, so while I’m sure it would help a whole lot, I doubt seriously it is a silver bullet fix.

That said I think we should absolutely put A WHOLE lotta resources into it.


It has been awhile and I don’t feel like searching it, but some state or town started a similar program and has planted like a few million trees over a very short period.


Honestly this really sounds like a propaganda playoff.


Bigwig corporations: “No we don’t need to impact our profit margins by spending money protecting the environment and limiting our output of pollutants?!?!


You peasants should just plant some trees..yea that’s it..

Sure we make billions of dollars profiting off of wrecking the planet, but you guys should fix it for us... on your tab.”

When I did chemical process wastewater treatment, I discovered that biotreatment was by far the least expensive way to clean the water. All one had to do was provide the proper conditions and care for a proper strain of biomass bacteria and that was it. The bacteria were cultured from the grounds around the plant and had adapted to eating the spills and wastes from the plant. The biggest operating expense was the cost of power for the air compressors to keep the pond aerated.
Here, we have a solution that will provide structural materials that we can use [and sell] that will also sequester CO2. I once suggested fast growing giant bamboo as one species because it grows faster than any other plant I know about that can also be used as structural material. In our world of instant gratification, watching plants grow inches in hours would help with the psychology and news cycle for those who do not understand such things.
We had this solution all along and it has been suggested many times but, if implemented, it would take the money out of the research community. There are vested interests that would reject the simple, obvious solution for this reason. It also removes the unwinnable war against CO2. Wars are noted for advancing technology and this war on CO2 will drive development of new energy sources and the technological spinoffs that would result, such as computational modeling, materials, advanced manufacturing, etc.

a reply to: Waterglass

So why not.

Indeed. Such a simple solution... but not profitable for anyone in particular.

Imagine if, instead of a carbon tax, folks received a tax credit for growing trees which really and truly get the job done: reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Win-win for everyone!

10 Carbon-Storing Trees and How to Plant Them

When choosing trees to plant, consider:
--Fast growing trees store the most carbon during their first decades, often a tree’s most productive period.
--Long-lived trees can keep carbon stored for generations without releasing it in decomposition.
--Large leaves and wide crowns enable maximum photosynthesis.
--Native species will thrive in your soil and best support local wildlife.
--Low-maintenance, disease-resistant species will do better without greenhouse-gas-producing fertilizers and equipment.

The “best trees” vary by region, so look around local parks to see what’s hardy in your climate zone.

The ten trees the article lists are Yellow Poplar, Silver Maple, Oak, Horse Chestnut, Red Mulberry, London Plane, American Sweetgum, Dogwood, Blue Spruce, and Pine trees. But of course not all trees grow well in all areas. The best trees are always native trees, and trees indigenous to your climate.

We're in the desert, so we have mesquite, palo verde, olive, citrus, willow and mountain laurel -- 18 trees in all! Lots of woody shrubs too; oleander, Texas sage, Mexican bird of paradise... all of which help too though not as much as trees. We don't even believe in man-made global warming, but we're already doing our part to reduce carbon!

originally posted by: Waterglass

So why not. I have read that young trees absorb CO2 just like when farmers pump in CO2 into a greenhouse to get their young plants to thrive and grow. I also read that when a tree or any other plant reach a certain age they begin to out gas CO2. I am no expert on this but like the oceans being a CO2 sink, they become acidic whereas a tree can handle it. I am all for this Thoughts?

Hemp is around 4 X more effective at removing CO2 from the atmosphere. You do the maths.

You can read the article here:

'Mind-Blowing' Fix

That won't work at all, it doesn't give the government a new tax revenue to micromanage our lives. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a carbon tax in the US will solve anything.

a reply to: Echo007

Because of the most basic economics..

If companies have to pay a tax on how much CO2 they produce...

A) they find ways to produce less.. because it is cheaper to do so then..

B) you can shift the revenue generated into clean up operations , sea walls, exc..

C) and this is really part of A, but..

It provides the best incentive ever to advance technology.. profit..


Which inherently will lead to less emissions




These answers were so basic it blows my mind they escaped you lol..


Sure it is fair to say that the government wouldn’t spend the money very efficiently, but that isn’t what you said lol..

a reply to: Boadicea

Who is “WE” lol??

Most Americans believe in climate change..

Basically all the teachers, scientists, college professors, computer programmers, exc.. all believe in climate change..


It is only hard right conservatives, Bible thumpers, and other easily propagandized types who are used to believing in fairy tales anyway..




So I guess your “we “ meant like MAYBE 25% of the population?

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Echo007

Because of the most basic economics..

If companies have to pay a tax on how much CO2 they produce...

A) they find ways to produce less.. because it is cheaper to do so then..

B) you can shift the revenue generated into clean up operations , sea walls, exc..

C) and this is really part of A, but..

It provides the best incentive ever to advance technology.. profit..


Which inherently will lead to less emissions




These answers were so basic it blows my mind they escaped you lol..


Sure it is fair to say that the government wouldn’t spend the money very efficiently, but that isn’t what you said lol..

They will add the tax to the product that they produce and the consumer will pay it. Products made in countries without the tax will have an advantage, so unless the tax is world-wide and at the same rate, it will not work.
The carbon tax is just another way of bleeding the consumer so people like Al "invented the internet" Gore can make big money and fly around in his private jet posturing for idiots who believe him.

I say put the money into innovation for AI or ASI so it can do the calculations necessary to crack stable fusion. Trees are nice but they aren't carbon sinks if they get cut down and release C02 back into the environment.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Waterglass

For one thing I doubt it could keep up with the pace, so while I’m sure it would help a whole lot, I doubt seriously it is a silver bullet fix.

That said I think we should absolutely put A WHOLE lotta resources into it.


It has been awhile and I don’t feel like searching it, but some state or town started a similar program and has planted like a few million trees over a very short period.


Honestly this really sounds like a propaganda playoff.


Bigwig corporations: “No we don’t need to impact our profit margins by spending money protecting the environment and limiting our output of pollutants?!?!


You peasants should just plant some trees..yea that’s it..

Sure we make billions of dollars profiting off of wrecking the planet, but you guys should fix it for us... on your tab.”

Different thing from what you are pushing with the Establishments CO2 lie. For one, trees do look nice compared to yellow sand or bare rocks.I sure think that!
The profiteers of industrial pollution make waste that kills everything, that is without EPA regulations. As for our CO2 siituation, we the people and the EPA have forced them to produce CO2 instead of the actual bad stuff because CO2 is natural and we do know for sure it is safe as plant food.

Are they going to plant golden trees that have diamond leaves and black opal fruits?
$300 billion for 500 billion - 1.5 trillion trees.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Boadicea

Who is “WE” lol??

My husband and me. Although I could just as easily be referring to me, myself and I.

Most Americans believe in climate change..

Okay.

Basically all the teachers, scientists, college professors, computer programmers, exc.. all believe in climate change..

Um... well... actually, basically we ALL know that climate changes. Always has and always will. Changes which are observable, tangible, and measurable. That's science. (And history)

Not ALL believe in man-made global warming, which is unobservable, intangible, and immeasurable. (Hence all the failed predictions) We can observe and measure weather to one extent or another; we cannot prove what if any effect humanity's activity has on the whole.

It is only hard right conservatives, Bible thumpers, and other easily propagandized types who are used to believing in fairy tales anyway..

Interesting analogy... "beliefs" and "fairy tales" indeed!

But it seems to me that it's only those who are stuck in the left/right paradigm and the attendant echo chambers who are easily propagandized...

So I guess your “we “ meant like MAYBE 25% of the population?

Nope. You guessed wrong, as already noted. I spoke for myself and my hubby.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Boadicea

Who is “WE” lol??

Most Americans believe in climate change..

Basically all the teachers, scientists, college professors, computer programmers, exc.. all believe in climate change..


It is only hard right conservatives, Bible thumpers, and other easily propagandized types who are used to believing in fairy tales anyway..




So I guess your “we “ meant like MAYBE 25% of the population?

Perhaps if you source 1% of that ?
Otherwise , I call tripe

Or just reduce every countries population by half.

When trees die they rot and produce green house gasses or what if they are burned
Trees are slow deliverers of death, be warned
☠️😒

originally posted by: blueman12
Or just reduce every countries population by half.

I volunteer you as our half

a reply to: Boadicea

You don't need to believe in global warming to see the devestating effects of pollution on the planet.