• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Planting trees as solution to climate crisis

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Planting trees is not the solution to climate change. It is one method to mitigate the speed and effects. In the end there is no surrogate to stop burning fossil fuel.
Yes, even the most aggressive tree planting possible would still not overcome the amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere every year. It might slow down AGW a bit, but without severe reductions in human production of CO2 it will not do much good at all.

But once we do get our carbon habit under control it could be part of the solution. A rather small part of it.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I'm a very practical, and very private, environmentalist.
I also 'own' two cars. a five year old Audi that I got because I need to drive my disabled parents around, and a 2015 Hyundai Accent with GREAT gas mileage that I drive everywhere else.

But...I can still only drive one of 'em at a time, and a parked car doesn't emit greenhouse gasses.

It's not like owning four houses and keeping 'em all open and using fossil fuels to heat and cool them, like some of the more outspoken leftist so-called environmentalist leaders do.
You totally missed the point. You critcised me yesterday on my 5 polyester T-shirts and now act surprised and pretend cars are no burden to the earth (when only produced standing in the garage).

I do not judge others/you for owning 2 cars. But then don't criticise my 5 polyester T-shirts (I use 10 years before throwing away) and me being not environmental aware. That's what I call hypocritical or at best fooling yourself.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Yes, even the most aggressive tree planting possible would still not overcome the amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere every year. It might slow down AGW a bit, but without severe reductions in human production of CO2 it will not do much good at all.

But once we do get our carbon habit under control it could be part of the solution. A rather small part of it.
One of the main reasons tree planting is not a sustainable solution is that forests don't store carbon, they buffer it. Over its life cycle a tree takes in carbon but it all gets released again when the tree dies and decays.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
One of the main reasons tree planting is not a sustainable solution is that forests don't store carbon, they buffer it. Over its life cycle a tree takes in carbon but it all gets released again when the tree dies and decays.
You might enjoy this:

 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Let's say that this study is accurate. How many of those who say that climate change is not a problem because they assume the solution is massive government intervention will change their minds based on this:

Scientists Identify How Many Trees to Plant and Where to Plant Them to Stop Climate Crisis

Around 0.9 billion hectares (2.2 billion acres) of land worldwide would be suitable for reforestation, which could ultimately capture two thirds of human-made carbon emissions.


The Crowther Lab of ETH Zurich has published a study in the journal Science that shows this would be the most effective method to combat climate change.


The Crowther Lab at ETH Zurich investigates nature-based solutions to climate change. In their latest study, the researchers showed for the first time where in the world new trees could grow and how much carbon they would store.
I nominate New Zealand as the obvious place to start. No one's using the land there for anything meaningful or productive or morally desirable. That's 268,021 km² to be getting on with.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I nominate New Zealand as the obvious place to start. No one's using the land there for anything meaningful or productive or morally desirable. That's 268,021 km² to be getting on with.
I've heard Australia has just made room for a lot of trees to be planted.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
And stated that as out of space Earth irradiation as a historic science attack effect had not yet cooled...2012 was the calculated return of a cold space radiation effect, then life as a cellular health was predicted to demonstrate its miraculous healing and also its aging condition changed....by that radiation finally being blocked out.

The elders tobacco tin was never in a timely collusion. Retrograde invertebrates struggle to intone an adequate song.

That is how the poly flex mind resists arrest.
 

Niblo

Active Member
Premium Member
Trees are worth planting simply because they're trees.
Of trees I recall, I've planted....
Redbud
Scotch pine
Norway spruce
Dawn redwood
Bald cypress
Catalpa
Oaks
Cleveland pear
Japanese larch
Maple
Black pines
Blue spruce
Austrian pine
Kwanzan cherry
Crabapple
Pink & white flowering dogwood
Tulip magnolia

Wot......no haggis trees?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
You practically set me up. It was such a free kick.
Given that fires are still burning, volunteer firefighters are getting foreclosure notices because they haven't been to their day job in months, but are STILL fighting fires and protecting their communities, and best of all our government's utter failure to respond appropriately, you'll forgive me a slightly subdued sense of humour about it.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The elders tobacco tin was never in a timely collusion. Retrograde invertebrates struggle to intone an adequate song.

That is how the poly flex mind resists arrest.
But truly, Jesus' teaching of the parable of Tupperware lids wilshow us the way
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Given that fires are still burning, volunteer firefighters are getting foreclosure notices because they haven't been to their day job in months, but are STILL fighting fires and protecting their communities, and best of all our government's utter failure to respond appropriately, you'll forgive me a slightly subdued sense of humour about it.
Yes, of course. I kind of thought about that myself after I hit "Post Reply". But then again, you know what they say in comedian circles: "It's better to lose a friend than to lose a punch line.".
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
About 10 years ago we, bought a 30 hectare parcel of rain forest. Chances are we will never see it, but ownership denies loggers the the right to cut it down.

There are hundreds of others also bought similar parcels so its a fair chunk of rain forest being saved.

But more needs to be done. Planting more trees is a big step in the right direction.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Wot......no haggis trees?
Haggis is an animal....not a tree!
080512_1140_scotlandfly2_f_improf_557x377.jpg
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
You totally missed the point. You critcised me yesterday on my 5 polyester T-shirts and now act surprised and pretend cars are no burden to the earth (when only produced standing in the garage).

I do not judge others/you for owning 2 cars. But then don't criticise my 5 polyester T-shirts (I use 10 years before throwing away) and me being not environmental aware. That's what I call hypocritical or at best fooling yourself.

I utterly fail to see why.

I do what I can do personally. I CAN refuse to wear polyester. I CAN'T not take care of my parents, or haul them around on a bicycle.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I utterly fail to see why.

I do what I can do personally. I CAN refuse to wear polyester. I CAN'T not take care of my parents, or haul them around on a bicycle.
You judged me on my 5 polyester T-shirts being bad for the environment. You COULD stop judging others. That is the point you missed. He who does not burden environment can judge me and others however much he likes. Probably he won't.

Cars was an example (I quoted it even). I am 100% sure that you own and use things in your life that are a burden to the environment. I do not use soap and tooth paste, do you? Also chemicals which needs to be manufactured in big factories using oil/Watts to run the machines. Even you live and breathe; CO2.

Judging others is insensitive, also a burden on (social) environment.

All people live and burden mother earth to some extend. That's life, until you die. Then the worms can eat you. That's good, you are being well used, to profit others. Cremating is an extra burden; all energy it takes, and withdrawing worms their food.
 
Top