Trees are a renewable resource that take CO2 and give O2, thus lowering the amount of "Greenhouse Gases" in the atmosphere, thereby lowering the rate of "Global Warming".
Not to mention, the wonderful shade given by a tree on a hot summers day,
Some trees will also absorb toxins in the soil, thereby aiding in the purification of the surrounding water table. Case in point, the Gold Rush in the mid 1800's. Trees in surrounding streams some of the larger trees had gold in their roots, not just on them--History.
In a nut shell........Yes!
2006-12-13 09:39:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by M_Palidin_2001 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, but it would help prevent soil erosion and water pollution. It would also help re-establish wildlife habitat.
As I see it, the best CO2 removers are corals. They take the CO2 and use it to make coral reefs, which are basically limestone. The CO2 is then trapped in the limestone for millions of years. The trees just make wood, which soon (in a few decades or centuries when the tree dies of old age) releases the CO2 back into the air. Before life started on Earth, the atmosphere was almost pure carbon dioxide. That CO2 was not removed by trees, it was removed by bacteria that made limestone. The modern life form that does the same thing is coral.
2006-12-13 17:18:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes, to an extent. The difference in the weight of the carbon stored in an acre of cleared land, and the amount stored in an acre of mature forest is tremendous, but after that forest has matured, it ceases to continue "removing" carbon from the atmosphere. It is a one-time deal.
As opposed to vast fields of empty lawn, yes, forest acreage is a much preferred idea. It also provides CO2-neutral fuel, and building materials, if we manage it properly, reducing our need for fossil fuel usage, which is the epitome of CO2 positive wastefulness.
2006-12-13 17:26:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by glassnegman 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not on CO2 but on water amount in the zone and in the temperature of the area because the soil is covered with a plant that modifies the quantity of sun absorbed. The forests are a very big solar energy converter to chemical energy. This lowers the temperatures of the areas covered so decreases the solar warming effect and increases the rain fall in the covered area.
2006-12-13 17:24:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by mi52 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not much. First of all, trees and plants do not get carbon from the soil. They get it from absorbing CO2 from the air. It is not possible for the CO2 to build up from burning fuel on the ground.
Secondly, 85% of the Earth is water. So the vast bulk of CO2 is taken up by sea plants, e.g. plankton.
Thirdly, the vast majority of CO2 in the upper atmosphere is produced by burning kerosene above 30,000 feet. THE JET engines!!!! Each ton of jet fuel produces 3.66 tons of CO2. Each jet engine burns 2-5 tons of fuel /hr. Thousand of hours of jet travel occurs every day. The good news is CO2 is heavier than air so it will drift down in time.
2006-12-13 17:43:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
popular opinion is that planting and harvesting forests is a carbon neutral way of producing energy. this is a false statement. forest suck carbon out of the soils while they grow. so in essence, if you burn the 'wood' of a tree, you are adding CO2 to the ATM at a cost to the carbon in the soil. only a standing forest holds more carbon than when it started. infact corn, soy, wheat, trees, palm oil, etc...all of these types of farming rob the soil of carbon and are technically NOT carbon neutral to the ATM. only perennial grass farming is carbon negative to the ATM.
so yes replanting forests can make a difference in the ATM CO2 but ONLY if they stay standing.
prairie grass farming sinks carbon into the soil more every year than the year before. so if one can use the prairie grass to fuel our energy, then this is actually a way of having our energy AND reducing global warming CO2.
2006-12-13 17:30:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by earthmimic 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Apparently, there may be some difference. Most of the atmoshpere's content is affected by ocean life such as plankton.
2006-12-13 17:32:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Tom Servo 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, but you would have to plant a loooooooooooooooot of trees. And, with that little CO2, most plants would die because they need it to make food.
2006-12-13 17:28:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by spens 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
d
2006-12-13 17:23:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by gg t 1
·
0⤊
1⤋