DO TREES CAUSE MORE POLLUTlON THAN CARS? REAGAN SEEMED TO THINK SO?

Question

http://deoxy.org/reagan.htm

Answer 1

Reagan is the kind of person who would chop down a redwood tree, get on the stump and give a speech and environmental protection.

Answer 2

Maybe?

Reagan was right: trees cause pollution - nation in brief - Ronald Reagan - Brief Article
Insight on the News, April 15, 2003 by John Elvin

Find More Results for: "TREES CAUSE POLLUTION "
Trees and volcanoes...
Nature's tipping...
Smog alert: the...
Clearing the Air:...
Here's hoping former president Ronald Reagan is enjoying the loudest laugh. You may recall that one of the examples used by his critics to portray him as a shallow dimwit was his contention that trees caused as much smog as cars. What a hoot! Well, who's hooting now? New scientific evidence indicates that Reagan's assessment may have been in fact moderate. It appears that coniferous forests actually could be causing more smog than traffic and industry combined.

According to a study by the University of Helsinki, coniferous forests--that is to say, those composed of trees such as pines--release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere that combine with other pollutants to form smog.

Several scientists and environmentalists contacted by the Associated Press for comment did not dispute the finding, though it contradicts the "conventional wisdom" that forests reduce pollution. Those who commented countered that forest emissions are part of the Earth's natural balance, whereas man-made pollution is an addition and therefore an avoidable health hazard.

Advertisement

Answer 3

Read this:

Do trees pollute the atmosphere?
Tim Radford
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian

Yes, just as president Ronald Reagan said in 1981. "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do," he opined. A little later, environmental scientists ruefully confirmed he was partially right.

In hot weather, trees release volatile organic hydrocarbons including terpenes and isoprenes - two molecules linked to photochemical smog. In very hot weather, the production of these begins to accelerate.

America's Great Smoky Mountains are supposed to take their name from the photochemical smog released by millions of hectares of hardwoods.

This week Natural Environment Research Council scientists warned that as summer temperatures rise in the UK, the isoprene output from trees could make a small but noticeable contribution to human discomfort. Isoprene serves as a catalyst, driving the rate at which sunlight breaks down oxides of nitrogen - mostly from agriculture and cars - to produce atmospheric ozone.

Ozone is a triple molecule of oxygen. High in the stratosphere it is a godsend, screening out cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation. But in the lower atmosphere it is a toxin: it causes stinging eyes, prickling nostrils and aggravates severe respiratory problems. Statisticians calculate that in August 2003 - the long hot summer that caused an estimated 20,000 deaths in western Europe - more than 500 British deaths could be attributed to ozone pollution.

But the experts say the trees alone are not the problem. The real villain is the motor car. Trees soak up carbon dioxide, and respire oxygen, doing far more good than harm. And finally, as one forester observed: why worry about a few harmful natural chemicals? In a truly antiseptic world we would all be dead.

Answer 4

The Reagan tree statement is a classic example of how impecable, but limited, logic can make one end up looking stupid. The statement defined pollution as the generation of carbon in the atmosphere (a known contributor to global warming).

While trees do convert CO2 into oxygen (thereby cleaning the air), they also resparate CO2 at night and convert alot of that carbon in to leaves and branches which die and then decay, releasing CO2 and methane (an even more important carbon source for warming). If you add up all the carbon released into the atmosphere, trees despite human deforestation efforts are a major source (larger than cars by far), plankton in the oceans are an even bigger source.

Here's the rub. Cycling carbon through the atmosphere is a normal ecological process that is critical to maintaining the current environment. Trees are part of this cycle and the earth has developed a stable but cyclical waxing and waning in carbon over 100s of millions of years.

Cars are a new, human-caused source of C02 creation (its actually accelerating the re-introduction of carbon stored in petroleum from 100+ million years ago when CO2 levels were much higher) that may be pushing the cycle out of sync. An even worse, realtime human-driven contributor is large-scale factory farming of cattle, pigs and chickens which generates lots of methane gas.

Some folks actually claim that by speeding deforestation, we are actually filling a gap in the carbon cycle with cars while others claim that the natural carbon cycle is capable of adjusting to human generated additions just like it adjusted to changes at the time when all the petroleum and coal reserves where formed (taking a lot of carbon out of the cycle).

Basically, generating carbon gases aren' in themselves pollution. What is pollution, and the problem, is generating additional carbon gas that the earth's natural system can't handle. To make an analogy, your boby is 97% water, but if I add a little more in the lungs, you drown and die. The little bit extra is the problem.

Answer 5

No, cars pollute the air but trees clear the air up
sry, Reagan is wrong

Answer 6

Absolutely not... trees are our oxygen... we create more pollution than cars or even trees. Reagan... well hmmm look at the source of the comment. He rarely knew what he was talking about.

Answer 7

"Reagan is stupid."

What is our country coming to these days? If you disagree with someone, then just insult them and you will feel better about yourself! That seems to be the logic that fools employ these days.

Reagan is one of the nation's greatest presidents. I can respect the decision that you may disagree with him, but I cannot comprehend why you would show him disrespect. Our nation is still standing, afterall.

Hopefully, global warming will cause you to melt, Snowflake. You are probably thinking, "what a ridiculous insult," but at least our feelings about each other's insults are mutual...

Answer 8

Depends on your definition of pollution. At night, trees do indeed put out a variety of hydrocarbons through their respiration process. That's a scientific fact that you can look up for yourself. (although judging by your link, that's not very likely) In fact, most of our oxygen doesn't come from trees, but from the earth's oceans. Tiny microorganisms called 'diatoms' do most of the CO2--> O2 conversion on this planet. Trees make good furniture and pharmaceuticals.

Answer 9

This is also the same man that could not recall seminal pieces of information concerning Iran-Contra, and was later found to suffer from Alzheimer’s disease (some say while he was still President). Political figures on both sides of the political spectrum have differing views concerning the environment and neither is truly informed by science as much as by the interests of their political constituency.

If you want to know the legitimacy of scientific claims, consult other scientists who are not in the hands of corporate or political backers.

Answer 10

I notice that all the comments are unsubstantiated, with no proper bibliography and may well have had words added to or taken away from, or at the very least taken out of context, by someone who is doing nothing more than hate-mongering on a man who has passed away.

Pretty pathetic on your part for spreading something that barely rises to the occasion of gossip. Hope you're proud of your liberal education.