- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why aren’t climate alarmists planting trees at an alarming rate?
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:23 am to Mike da Tigah
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:23 am to Mike da Tigah
Well one question I would ask is who are the climate alarmists you speak of? That matters because of what their media abilities are. I agree with you that more tree’s would help absorb more CO2 , and it frustrates me that it’s not talked about more. It does make the motives of some more suspicious!
1
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:24 am to Mike da Tigah
Since the ocean makes up 75% of the surface of the planet, wouldn't it make more sense to stimulate algae growth in the oceans? Away from the coasts, the vast majority of the ocean is a barren desert due to the lack of nutrients.
And contrary to popular belief, most fossil fuels aren't "dead dinosaurs" but dead plants. By putting Carbon back into plant biomass, without an associated food web the the pelagic ocean, most of the algae would die and fall to the bottom of the deep ocean where it would be reincorporated into ocean sediments (future rocks (calcium carbonate)). This is basically where all the excess carbon in the atmosphere has been extracted from since the start of the industrial revolution. We'd simply be on our way to putting it back....
And contrary to popular belief, most fossil fuels aren't "dead dinosaurs" but dead plants. By putting Carbon back into plant biomass, without an associated food web the the pelagic ocean, most of the algae would die and fall to the bottom of the deep ocean where it would be reincorporated into ocean sediments (future rocks (calcium carbonate)). This is basically where all the excess carbon in the atmosphere has been extracted from since the start of the industrial revolution. We'd simply be on our way to putting it back....
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 9:26 am
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:25 am to Mike da Tigah
imagine if at christmas, we planted one for the one cut down for your xmas pleasure,
imagine if the developers, worked around established tree, instead of doze and burn,
would it make a difference? maybe 50ppm? 100?
now measure that.
you can't, nor can you prove today, what todays average earth temp is.
it's all lies to screw ya over
imagine if the developers, worked around established tree, instead of doze and burn,
would it make a difference? maybe 50ppm? 100?
now measure that.
you can't, nor can you prove today, what todays average earth temp is.
it's all lies to screw ya over
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:27 am to Mike da Tigah
if you live in a city (where most of these folks seem to be) you probably don't have a lot of options/resources as far as finding land and trees to plant on it goes. The climate activists who own land are probably planting trees on it as much as they could anyhow. I know a few who have a couple of acres and are converting it to native prairie grasses and such.
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 9:28 am
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:28 am to Mike da Tigah
Most city zoning codes require new trees for all new development and tree replacement on existing site. There are two major problems.
1) This doesn't address public property (neutral grounds/medians and street planting areas) where cities don't replace trees fast enough, don't have enough money to do it, and are scared of doing it due to the upkeep and maintenance cost and the risks of litigation when the tree dies and fall on someone or takes out a power line.
2) Many private property owners don't want to plant new trees or replace existing trees. Sometimes its legit (removing trees that could fall during storms) but most of the time its purely for cosmetic reasons to add extra pavement or building. These are the number 1 variance/waiver requested in many cities.
To your point, if I was in charge I would never grant that waiver.
1) This doesn't address public property (neutral grounds/medians and street planting areas) where cities don't replace trees fast enough, don't have enough money to do it, and are scared of doing it due to the upkeep and maintenance cost and the risks of litigation when the tree dies and fall on someone or takes out a power line.
2) Many private property owners don't want to plant new trees or replace existing trees. Sometimes its legit (removing trees that could fall during storms) but most of the time its purely for cosmetic reasons to add extra pavement or building. These are the number 1 variance/waiver requested in many cities.
To your point, if I was in charge I would never grant that waiver.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:28 am to Mike da Tigah
Bc trees are too low to the ground, they can’t jump up and catch the CO2 once it’s up in the sky
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:35 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
You know, if it were me, and I were so driven by fear of our carbon footprint on the planet, I’d be super busy planting as many trees as I could, and encouraging everyone else to do the same, but why is it that you just never really hear the climate alarmists pushing that over getting rid of the internal combustion engine to replace it with electric vehicles that use fossil fuels to attain power to generate said electricity?
Wouldn’t that stand to be a more obvious answer, and one that does the job without much input from yourself even, besides planting it in the ground? Nature’s carbon filter and oxygen producer. God thinks of everything, but apparently man has to complicate the issue. Unless of course, it’s not about reducing carbon at all, and more about enriching themselves, moving wealth and power, controlling movement, or some other more nefarious agenda at play here.
Are they not? There is a massive effort going on in the US to plant 1 trillion trees around the globe over the next 7 years. There is an issue though....there is no capacity, greenhouse or naturally, to plant and grow a trillion extra trees in the next 7 years. The capacity to produce seedlings is maxed out at current numbers. Hard to plant a tree when there is no tree to plant...
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:36 am to Cycledude
quote:
Well one question I would ask is who are the climate alarmists you speak of? That matters because of what their media abilities are. I agree with you that more tree’s would help absorb more CO2 , and it frustrates me that it’s not talked about more. It does make the motives of some more suspicious!
Perhaps the most egregious are those within the W.H.O who are attempting to push Europe over the brink with their insane attacks on the internal combustion engine, resulting in Europe setting outright bans on them for movement, creating little environmental safe zones free of ICE vehicles, even those that fully comply with Euro 5 emission standards, and are super frugal in consumption like small displacement motorcycles/scooters/etc for example.
These are the world’s nut balls, who don’t concern themselves with people and the lives they would live in the wake of their insane legislation as they do their zealous adherence to their utopian agendas, and they are running the show. These people are super dangerous for mankind, and they have their claws in governments all over the globe, and their influence is felt here as well, our very own unelected lobbying magistrates, influencing politics yet unelected and citizens of places far removed from the countries they wield influence in.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:37 am to SantaFe
quote:
Saplings are cheap.
Solar panels, windmills, and EVs are big money makers.
Small trees suitable for planting are relatively cheap, that is part of the problem. There is very little incentive to produce them in the numbers required to keep up with current rates of deforestation, let alone increase the number of trees globally.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:05 am to Mike da Tigah
Global Warming is a Scam. The Earth, according to scientist. has been cooling and warming for the last million years. It is caused by numerous events but generally its our Oceans that have the most effect on global temperature. Keep in mind. 71 percent of the Earth is water and co2 in the atmosphere causes temperature fluctuations. Scientist don't know shite about weather changes a million or a thousand or a hundred years ago. They cannot prove the Earth existed a million years ago. Their opinions are all speculation and guess work and have NO basis of fact, none.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:16 am to Mike da Tigah
Never trust anyone that isn't promoting the layups first. Just like with the COVID response. If they had led with diet/exercise/sunlight/Vitamin D, then it would have been easier to believe them when they followed up with the shots.
These climate change clowns are the same way. They never talk about planting trees or their own personal accountability. It's all about what they want YOU to do.
These climate change clowns are the same way. They never talk about planting trees or their own personal accountability. It's all about what they want YOU to do.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:28 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
planting trees
They kind of are, though.
I can take a dry land ag field and get paid $3,200 an acre for it, they come in develop it and plant trees on it, then I can sale the Carbon Credits that it creates. The land is still mine, but I can’t go cutting the trees down.
I could put it in to CRP and get paid a little over $100 an acre for 15-30 years and sale the Carbon Credits it creates. I could leave like that and still collect the Credits, harvest the tree if they are big enough and then I can start the project all back over.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:45 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Wouldn’t that stand to be a more obvious answer, and one that does the job without much input from yourself even, besides planting it in the ground?
The main issue here is that trees would have to be planted by the billions, mature trees at that. Average mature oak tree only scrubs a fraction of the CO2 a human being produces per annum, so each person would have to plant dozens of trees just to offset their breathing emissions alone. Better for the climate alarmists just to kill themselves.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:00 am to jimjackandjose
quote:
Imagine the intelligence level of the average person is... half the world is dumber than them
Actually, that's the mean.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:04 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:You serious?
Why aren’t climate alarmists planting trees at an alarming rate?
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:05 am to Mike da Tigah
Gotta clear all that land for the windmills and solar farms, duh.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:10 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Hard to plant a tree when there is no tree to plant...
All one needs is a good, healthy pecan tree and about 5 squirrels. No work required.
I wager that more trees, by a wide margin, are "planted" naturally every year than by human efforts. One forgetful squirrel can "plant" 20-30 a year at least. Then, throw in wind, water, and other animals, and you can see how that could be the case.
Once again, we can't compete with Nature.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:15 am to Loup
quote:
I know a few who have a couple of acres and are converting it to native prairie grasses and such.
uhuh. and what was on said land before they planted native grasses and such? and how much land are we taking? a 8k square ft lot? or multiple acres?
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:17 am to Mike da Tigah
Trees are carbon neutral.
They suck up a bunch of CO2 during respiration
When they die, they release all that CO2 back into the atmostphere
Imo, trees don't do anything for reducing carbon in entire lifespan. May be wrong on the amounts, but they certainly release CO2 when they die
They suck up a bunch of CO2 during respiration
When they die, they release all that CO2 back into the atmostphere
Imo, trees don't do anything for reducing carbon in entire lifespan. May be wrong on the amounts, but they certainly release CO2 when they die
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:20 am to THog
quote:
If CO2 is reduced to a certain point, all plant life stops growing. Is almost like our atmosphere is a natural balance supporting all kinds of life or something.
It's almost like it's getting on the high end and can afford /needs to drop to a lower CO2 ppm in the air.
Just because 0 CO2 in the air is bad for plant growth, doesn't mean that very high CO2 is good for the earth.
Oxygen is an example. Humans can survive 18.5% to 23%. Most DA's here would think more oxygen is better in the air, but it's not at very high levels.
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 11:21 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News