English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

I have been to several afforetation activities carried out by some civillian organisations,but almost most of them failed,because young trees need good care after they have been planted or they will die soon.Besides that as two of the answerers said it is a matter of money and energy.

2007-02-04 08:43:16 · answer #1 · answered by edd 3 · 0 0

Yes trees take the carbon dioxide in and breathe it back as oxygen. I believe it was Priestly who discovered that. The Uk was once covered in trees but most have been eliminated. You will have difficulty in persuading anyone to grow more trees on spare land. I have a modest small holding and love trees. I am surrounded by neigbours who hate trees - the trees overlook their gardens, trap the light, are dangerous and so on. It is difficult fighting this bias and they would be woderfully happy if I cut them all down some of which are over three hundred years. There is zero chance of my doing that but I get pressure from the council to do just that so I can hardly see them supporting an increase

2007-02-08 04:44:45 · answer #2 · answered by Professor 7 · 0 0

Any green plant is good at removing CO2 from our atmosphere. Simply planting more vegetation won't have a big enough impact on global warming if thats what you're thinking. The problem is that most moderate climate green plants tend to close their stomata (the pores on the underside of the leaves that allow the exchange of CO2 for O2) when its hot. So even if we have the whole planet covered in trees, if its too hot, they wont perform as much gas exchange. Thats not to say we shouldn't plant the trees as you suggest.

2007-02-04 08:26:01 · answer #3 · answered by Hans B 5 · 0 0

all plants and trees are the best at removing CO2 form the atmosphere, thats how photosynthesis is started, and in the calvin cycle it turns it into O2 [oxygen] the photosynthesis formula is 6CO2 + 6H2O --> C6H12O6 + 6O2

..and for planting more trees...yes they really need to do that lol cause the oxygen lvls have been decreasing over the years.
plus trees and plants are pretty :D
lol

2007-02-04 08:25:38 · answer #4 · answered by Panda 2 · 1 0

I think all trees get rid of carbon dioxide, it's got something to do with them breathing it in and the breathing out oxygen. And trees are rather expensive, but the thoughts good, you just have to persuade the gov.

2007-02-04 08:25:06 · answer #5 · answered by floppity 7 · 0 0

That's an excellent idea. Unfortunately houses are more likely to be built in such fields, as no money's to be made by planting trees. (Perhaps I'm just a cynic.)

2007-02-04 08:20:08 · answer #6 · answered by tattyhead65 4 · 1 0

They really are. I think that the problem with the cultivation is the cost of money. Who shall be responsible for it? Some international organisation is obviously needed to be in charge.

2007-02-04 08:28:56 · answer #7 · answered by silberstein_9 3 · 0 0

Yes they are good at removing co2,Problem is man is busy chopping trees down to use for timber products,re,rain forests.

2007-02-04 08:20:02 · answer #8 · answered by taxed till i die,and then some. 7 · 1 0

All plants that use photosynthesis . N.A.S.A. planed to use tubes of algae in water with air bubbled through the solution . this is for deep space trips.

2007-02-04 09:48:55 · answer #9 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0 0

Lookup carbon cycle.

2007-02-04 08:19:33 · answer #10 · answered by John S 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers