OK YOU SCIENCE FANS - I HAVE A QUESTION....

[whosinpower]

Assuming that rising greenhouse gases are to blame for global warming,

and that humanity should, could and must do something to slow it down to at least give mothernature a chance, and us a chance to adapt to our ever changing environment,

how many trees would it take to soak up our emissions today?
How many trees would or should we plant to offset co2 levels?
How much does one tree take up co2 and convert to oxygen?

You may laugh at me, and for that I do not care, but mother nature has, in most cases, far better tools to deal with than we could ever engineer.

We are all on the same page thinking we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions....but there is another element that I don't hear much about....using mother nature and trees to soak up what we generate.

[LSK]

1. I dont know how much CO2 a tree sucks up,but you are right

Trees are a big part of the equation too. Cutting down rainforests in Brazil and in Africa has contributed greatly to the problem. Al Gore puts a little attention to this in his movie.

If you want to do something with trees, try getting involved with the Arbor Day Foundation.

http://www.arborday.org

[Taverner]

3. Blue-green algae is much better at soaking up carbon

and its dying faster than the trees...

[jwirr]

2. I do not know the answer but Al Gore in his book Earth in Balance

suggested 2 billion trees to reforest those African, Asian and South American rain forest areas that are barren now.

[mainegreen]

4. I seem to remember (perhaps wrongly) that ocean microorganisms generate most of our O2.

And that the acidification of the ocean may greatly reduce their number. More trees are a good idea, but that isn't really a solution.

[Bandit]

5. Algae and plankton convert most CO2 on earth

We need to protect our oceans even more so than our forest.

[whosinpower]

6. googled it and got this back

A broad leafed tree will absorb about 750kg of CO2 in its lifetime.

According to the website I looked at, humans need to save about 7000kg/year of CO2.
That equates to 10 trees per year.

Even if we each planted 5 trees a year, it would make a difference, imho.
Not enough....but neither is anything else I have read, going green, going solar, going wind energy, buying carbon credits. All of it together would make a big difference. Each one by itself is not enough. But hey - I am no scientist, just an average person who wants this planet in good shape for her grandchildren.

[Bluedogvoter]

7. Thats not my field, but I'd be curious to know as well.

I do remember reading somewhere that currently we are gaining more trees each year in the U.S.

That was about 5 years ago though.

[TheBaldyMan]

8. IIRC most carbon take-up occurs in the polar oceans

the plankton goes into overdrive in the long polar summers and sequestrates a huge amount of carbon. Temperate forests do not fix that much carbon compared to equatorial forest.

It isn't just a question of how many trees, it a question of what trees and where. Climate change is also altering rainfall patterns so perhaps the species boundaries will change. Increasing desertification will make reforestation far more difficult in some areas.

You can't just plant trees either, we all have to start using less energy, either by using energy more efficiently or consuming less. In the West that means both fuel/energy efficiency and consuming much, much less.

[HereSince1628]

9. Don't you think it'd be better to turn CO2 into rock?

Carbon in limestones and dolomites spends a lot longer sequestered away from the atmospheric component of the carbon cycle. IMHO need to think in terms of enhancing production of tiny organisms that contribute to the formation of these sediments.

But, did you consider other alternatives? The GOP is.
The average family of 4 can reduce it's carbon foot print by 1/4th simply by killing two of its members. This can be achieved by denying health care to the needy. With some discretion, the x and y generations could reduce carbon emissions, contribute to population reduction, reduce the production of GHG's, and free themselves from obligations for government entitlements simply by killing their baby boomer relatives--just target their SS and medicare :sarcasm:

[greenman3610]

11. the more I learn about carbon sequestration

the more I think this is a viable option that
will be part of the mix.
I know Gore feels it is important.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. The U.S. produces about 110 million tons of CO2 per year.

Assume that a tree gets a bulk of it's mass from photosynthesis. Most of a tree is cellulose or lignin, both of which are derived from glucose made during photosynthesis. About 70% of the mass of glucose come from CO2, so a gross estimate is that about 70% of a tree's mass comes from CO2.

So in order to make up for the 110 million tons of CO2 the U.S. produces, we'd need to grow ~157 million tons of new tree material, every year. An adult tree might increase its mass by several pounds a year. Seedlings grow considerably less.

We need to reduce emissions.

[DCKit]

12. HEMP n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Where are you going to store all that hemp?

[Karmageddon]

13. Trees take a long time to mature, and when they finally die, they give up their CO2 when they decay

While planting buttloads of trees is a great idea for a number of reasons**, it's not enough in and of itself to handle the CO2 problem. A 4 foot tall oak stuck in the ground today will take decades to mature enough to really start to suck up the CO2, and in a few 100 years (or however long it takes) when it dies, and every year when the leaves fall, the decay process releases that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Of course, in a few 100 years, we had damn well better have invented technologies to reduce our production of greenhouse gases and to get rid of them from the atmosphere, or the dying trees will be the least of our problems.

My point is certainly not to discourage planting trees - I've planted 100's (1000's if you count the little 6" seedling twigs that eventually turn into trees) but it alone won't solve the problem. It's just one small part of a greater solution. The best, fastest, easiest, cheapest way is to produce less through increased efficiency, conservation, and alternative energy sources.


** - provide shade to keep you and your house cool, so you use less energy on air conditioning, and less water to keep your lawn from baking in the summer heat
- windbreaks help keep your house warm in the winter so you use less energy on heat (at least evergreens work for this)
- provide habitat and food for birds and wildlife
- hold soil in place to reduce erosion
etc, etc.

[NickB79]

19. Look up information on terra preta

Apparently it's similar to charcoal, but can lock up carbon in the soil for hundreds of years and improve soil fertility at the same time. The ancient Amazonian tribes used it to create fertile farmland in the Amazon basin, a region renowned for it's soil infertility.

Over on the E/E board, there was a discussion about coppicing fast-growing trees such as poplars or willows and using electricity from wind turbines to turn the wood into terra preta as a carbon-sequestration technique. Plow it into fields throughout the Midwest and we could also increase soil fertility and moisture retention without need for fossil-fuel-based fertilizers.

[beastbitten]

14. Something else to think about

Forests no longer allies in climate-change fight

OTTAWA–Fearing the effects of forest fires and tree-destroying insect infestations, the federal government has decided against using Canada's forests in the calculations for totalling up the country's greenhouse-gas emissions.

Government scientists made the call after learning of the damage that could come to forests from 2008 to 2012 and realizing the forests could become another source of emissions, pushing Canada even further from its Kyoto targets.

In addition to destroying trees, which take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, insect infestations increase the threat of wildfires. For example, the mountain pine beetle, a current threat in Western Canada, burrows into a tree and prevents it from drawing water, killing it and turning it to kindling.

"I know for the average guy in the street, they think, `Big forests, lots of trees, how could it be?'" said Tony Lempriere, a senior economist with the Canadian Forest Service in Ottawa. "But if you think of fires, that's a lot of carbon and they're very unpredictable."



More at the link:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/199245

[newyawker99]

15. Hi beastbitten!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Deforestation is not the main issue

The problem is that we're injecting carbon into our atmosphere that has been buried for millions of years.

Mother nature has better tools, but they take eons to cycle. Cut down a tree and, generally speaking, other plants take its place to absorb the CO2 that was released when the previous one was burned (or decayed)

Scientists believe that it is technologically possible to bury the huge quantities of carbon that is necessary to correct the problem. The most urgent thing we could do is to stop digging up stuff to burn.

[NickB79]

18. Mother Nature does have far better tools than we do to deal with ecological damage

Famine, pestilence, and dehydration all come to mind.

Mother Nature won't waste much time trying to deal with the symptoms of global warming. She'll go right for the source, namely you, me and the other 6.5 billion humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. If the human race enters the 22nd century with more than 2 billion people on this planet, I would be shocked (if I lived to be 127 years old).