Everyone can do this

On the rense.com site there is an article this morning Climate Fear As Carbon Levels Soar- Scientist bewildered.
My question is why are they bewildered we all know or should know that trees take the CO2 out of the air and gives us oxygen. Between mankind cutting down the needed rain forest the plants taken to use for medicines then we have fires and floods destroying what do you expect.
Do all of you know how important trees,plants etc. are important to our survival. Earth has provided us with the cure to repair the damage but are we doing what needs to be done to help ourselves? Fifty years ago for every tree destroyed ten should have been planted to replace it today it has gotten so bad that we would need to at least plant one thousand trees for everyone destroyed.
The day may come when you start having trouble breathing because the air has become to thin is this what you want for yourself your children your grandchildren I think not.
Plants in you garden can be dug up and seperated into root sections then replanted and it would only cost you your time.
For the life of me I can't figure out why the scientist don't see this and tell everyone to start planting in mass.
I really do hope you listen to what I am saying before it is to late just think about it use the old logic and common sense.

It's same do we burn woods to make electricity/heat or do we leave them to forests because that coal in trees will be emitted back to atmosphere everycase, in decaying process. Only what matters is that amount of carbon in circulation stays same and that growing trees absorbs as much as amount of emitted carbon. (in decaying or by burning)

Now the problem is that we are burning fossil fuels and carbon in those has been out of circulation/"equation" hundreds million years.
So to compensate that amount of growing trees would have to multiplied so that they could absorb all that excessive coal... and neither that would help because these same trees would still emit that coal back to atmosphere when they decay so this would still increase amount of carbon in circulation.

Originally posted by observe50
The day may come when you start having trouble breathing because the air has become to thin...

Actually carbondioxide is denser than this compound of gases called air.

There's no doubt more trees is a good thing...

The loss of rain forest alone has global consequence, and there is concern for deforestation even in countries like Canada.

But is planting trees in backyards enough?
Surely it looks great behind the house and is a joy for the shade in the hot summer. But what about farming? We can't grow trees to eat (other than fruit) and we'd have to trade beef and grain and corn for apples pears and peaches. I know I'm oversimplifying...but you get my drift.

Every year, hundreds of university students spread out into the wilderness areas of Ontario, where I live, and make much needed tuition cash by planting thousands of trees each. My youngest son planted over a million by his fourth summer. It is backbreaking work and those young men and women are toughened after just a few weeks working daylight hours and tenting it the the dark.
Those trees they plant will be harvested in 20-30 years by the companies that contract the planters. It's a good system, but yet, every time I go into the wilds of Northern Ontario, there seems to be more naked ground. I had the same feeling when visiting BC and Alberta...more mountainsides scraped bare where once was lush forest.

Great for the treeplanters...not too nice to see.

The point of answering on this thread...imo

I believe one thing we have to do is stop 'generally' building with wood, forget plywood, pine 2x4's or 2x10's and start thinking other available material. They're stronger and less prone to damp and termites, for instance. Moving away from wood framed houses would certainly impact the forestry. What would I promote as a good substitute(?)
..heh heh...I'm thinking car tires filled with compacted earth as a good wall. (crappy for wallpaper, though)

Another idea...what is up with a telephone pole needing an entire tree when we mass produce lamp standards for streetlighting...aren't they tougher than some poor old jack pine anyways?

OK...now I'm ranting...lol
What I really think is wasteful is paper products...and I could go on for an hour...but what is up with reading the newspaper online regularly through the day but buying the half pound New York Times for the crossword puzzle? Give me a break!

Anyways...I felt like responding to this cuz it sounded like a cry FOR the wilderness and I always perk at that.


[edit on 11-10-2004 by masqua]

We have more trees in the USA now than we did when we founded this country in 1776.

How could this be? Well who was here in 1776 that could put out natural caused forest fires? Think about it.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by Carseller4]

Originally posted by Carseller4
We have more trees in the USA now than we did when we founded this country in 1776.

There wasn't cars and traffic jams then... or other things burning fossil fuels.

Speaking from personal experience, I know major logging companies operating in Northern Ontario have been consistently been replanting for the last 20 years or so. I've been going there for years and year after year places that have been clear the year before have new trees planted. These companies do realise if they don't replenish they'll be out of business eventually. One thing though, is that they replant trees that are generally quick growing. Once the birch and such are gone they don't normally replant them, but might leave a few still living in the clear cut. In more populated areas trees on crown lands (which make up a huge bulk of forest land) are generally thinned only (no clear cutting unless it's private property) and then replanted by the Ministry of Natural Resources.