If every single person on Earth planted 1 tree, what effect would that have on global warming?

Answer 1

Permaculture Answer: Excellent question. If you get bored easily go on to the next answer because this one is going to be detailed and long. To be clear this answer is about owner planted Permaculture Homesteads NOT native natural woods/forests; which should be left alone.

The maximum carbon uptake point is it at at peak growing not when the tree is mature. So it starts to take up carbon as soon as it is established. CO2 sequestering saplings grow very fast particularly if they are fruit trees. In the UK trees can fruit within five years given the right conditions. If looking at CO2 sequestering, then trees that are fully mature need to be cut down and used in buildings/cabinet made furniture so that they last for hundreds of years. A hundred year old tree is no longer growing as fast, it is 'maintenance' only. So as part of your managed woodland/CO2 sequestering, you take a yield. You cut down the older timber which creates space to plant more saplings, remember, it is the new growth that sequesters most carbon, as long as you do not burn the timber or allow it to decompose it locks the CO2 in. If it is burned it only releases the same amount of CO2 as it took in unlike oil based products it is carbon neutral. So the newly planted trees then take up further amounts of carbon.

An explanation as why to plant fruit trees are the best for carbon sequestering is quoted below:
'There is a relationship of tree growth to O2 output. Cellulose is a key component of tree growth. Cellulose chemically is identical to starch - the only difference is the linkage between the monomers. Starch is a carbohydrate that is made from, and converted back to, sugar, when it's needed by the organism. Taking all of this in, tree growth results from the production of sugars. If you have tree growth AND another outlet for sugar production, such as fruit production, you get that much more bang for the buck, photosynthesis wise. If I were to plant a crop to uptake CO2, I'd plant fruit. The stoichiometric of the reaction in trees that produces oxygen ultimately results in the production of sugars. If your are looking for the tree that has the most bang for the buck in producing oxygen, pick a fruit tree. The tree not only has to use photosynthesis for it's own growth, repair, etc, it has to manufacture the fruit, which is a huge storehouse of sugars' Thomas K Yahoo Answers. Thanks Thomas.

So I agree with Trev that the key is to plant a broadleaved native or fruit trees, BUT that has to be in a mixed native woodland or small clumps, not singular trees. I agree CO2 sequestering is particularly effective in a tropical climate and accept Trev's figures for removal of approx. 40kg of CO2 from the atmosphere as net reduction. You suggest one tree for each person on Earth in your question Trev suggests 500 for those in US. This is still NOT a lot of trees. Combine this with reductions in emissions and new technology, we can make start to make a real difference.

However, Sorry Trev, but the effect may be small in terms of the calculations you have made above, but in reality they are massive and essential see points below. Nobody is seeing the bigger picture where GW is concerned.

Mushrooms 'Mycelium' are regulating the earth's ecosystems, recycling carbon, nitrogen and other essential elements as they break down plant and animal matter to create new soil. They are essential for the health of our soil and ecosystem. Mycellium are the 'missing' keys to both human and the Earth's health. Trees and other green plants could not grow and reach maturity without symbiotic associations with mycelium, the network of fungal threads in the soil that act as interfaces between plant roots and nutrients. But we are losing them before we can even identify them. We are reducing biodiversity, through man's activity from clear cutting forests to developing land which stops them migrating and adapting. We are destabilizing nutrient cycles, which results in crop failures, loss of diversity and the need for ever more invasive farming techniques/chemicals to be used so contributing to global warming. Mycellium also help to protect the land from the damage we humans inflict. Staments the author has discovered ways in which to decompose toxic wastes and pollutants, catch and reduce silt from stream beds and pathogens from agricultural watersheds. Mycelium can be used to control insect populations too.


Byderule mentions a number of other features that trees contribute to minimizing the effects of global warming. Firstly trees absorb heat, produce shade, stabilize humidity, improve air quality, create micro climates which can create cooler environments, breezes and precipitation.
Alongside this Byderule mentions psychological improvement, fruit production and soil enrichment/production. I add that trees not only build soil but the prevent soil erosion. Trees make beneficial root associates, provide aerosol for saplings, take up water and re-release it thus 'watering' other plants around them encouraging diversity and a habitat for flora and fauna.To adapt to climate change we can use the permaculture stacking system, based on natural ecosystems. Layers of growth from bacteria through, herbs, shrubs, through to full size trees. Woods are always warmer in winter than cleared ground and forests maintain an even temperature in summer, ameliorating the micro climate.

But there are many, many other factors that should help mitigates against climate change:

There is also the Urban Heat Island Effect, Albedo Effect, is a massive problem in cities in Summer, raising the temperature significantly. People then increase power use for cooling systems/fans which in turn create more heat. Again good Permaculture design can mitigate this,
using natural materials such as large boulders and shady areas another micro climate can be produced by the thermal gradient between these two zones creating a cooling breeze.
Deforestation and plowing create hot spots and flooding caused by cold rain on warm over illuminated fields. Planting Trees as mixed native woodland would do the opposite, producing shade and storing water when wet to release when it is very dry. You create useful micro climates by planting shelter belts, positioning water and light reflecting gravels and white barked trees to reflect sunlight. Using large rocks to store heat and disperse heat during cooler times.

Trees are a resource that could mitigate against climate change because trees are effective way of preventing development of land and resulting CO2 emissions from the building industry. Concrete is made from cement which requires large amounts of energy to produce, it does not reabsorb CO2, the building industry in general uses massive amounts of drinking water. Mining the raw materials for the production of both cement and iron ore for steel causes massive environmental disruption. There are much higher environmental costs in transportation than using locally sourced timber. The concrete contains gravel and sands these also need to be mined, although these gravel pits do actually create new habitat they are not generally used for food production. Processing steel also uses massive amounts of energy in blast furnaces and rolling mills. Reinforced concrete, which is needed for high rise flats, is notoriously difficult to recycle. All the above processes produce copious amounts of greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change. The concrete route is a one way trip because concrete is there for good. Trees can be replanted and old timber buildings just return to the soil without leaving a trace.

Without this land being protected and managed in this way, it's value would be in selling it for real estate. That is covering it in reinforced concrete, asphalt and erecting high rise buildings. The other main uses of land is cattle ranching, or conventional agriculture with all their environmental disadvantages and major contributors to global warming. Give trees greater value so more will be planted. If you are using them for timber, then yes they may take 80 years to grow but there is 80 years of benefit from the forest habitat, then because it is valuable it is replanted. If everybody planted a few apple trees, the Mycelium would again be able to 'run'; migrate too.

The thing to do is not just plant a tree but to plant a wood around your home, even in suburbia, as the obvious place to live is in a wood. The materials you need are at hand, your own food, timber for construction and fuel, no transport, mining, processing etc 'costs' so less CO2 emissions again.

Answer 2

If every single person on Earth planted a tree, we would simply delay "global warming." Whether we like it or not, it is a natural process that has and will repeat itself until the Earth dies. Humans are simply speeding up that process by putting pollutants, etc into the air. If everyone were to plant a single tree, as well as cut back on the pollutants they use and recycle, then the earth may have a decent chance. But if we continue to pollute the way we do, use up all the natural resources, and basically "sow the fields with salt" [take & take, destroying in return], then pretty soon it's going to come back to bite us in the ***.

Answer 3

It wouldn't affect the long term CO2 concentrations by much. Trees store carbon in their vegetable matter, but when the tree loses leaves or dies, they give up the carbon back into the atmoshpere with little long term effect on CO2 concentrations.

Preserving our natural environment is still a worthwile thing. There are other important environmental issues besides global warming.

The global warming debate seems to be distracting people from issues like deforestation and biodiversity - but when we lose a species, it's gone forever and we can never get it back.

Answer 4

A tremendous effect. Not necessarily directly on global warming but it would allow everyone on earth to stop and think about why they are planting a tree. Exposing everyone on the planet to the issue and allowing them to ponder the simplicity of ways that they can make a difference would be surprisingly powerful.

Answer 5

If you just bought a residence and you have no budget for a specialist landscaper you just come to the right spot https://tr.im/8YajX so that you learn how to deal with landscaping even if is your first experience since is often a initial for everything.
Ideas4landscaping is a digital downloadable collection of 300 step-by-step guides, themes and video tutorials and contains over 7250 large resolution photographs for those individuals who are searching for inspiration and suggestions to increase their landscaping requirements. The package comes as a Computer CD ROM as well.
Full with photographs and simple diagrams, this program will make you look like an professional in this world of landscaping in front of your close friends and household.

Answer 6

6 billion tress would make a huge different. But as others have said, with out energy policy changes, evriomental changes, and large political changes (Al Gore for President) we might not even see those trees last to make a difference. Change comes with your wallet and votes, but in the mean time plant as many trees as you can in protceted areas.

Answer 7

Interesting question. At the rate we're cutting them down, can we ever "catch up." Still, a marvelous idea. We've planted a half-dozen on our little homesite. And 1,000 macadamia trees on our farm in Hawaii.

Answer 8

Maybe it will have little effects on global warming.. but that's a good start

Answer 9

The effect would be small but... it would be an important step in the right direction.

Planting the right tree in the right place (native broadleaved or fruit tree in a tropical climate) removes approx 40kg of CO2 from the atmopshere as an overall net reduction.

40kg isn't a lot, it equates to the emissions of some of the poorest countries on the planet. In the richer countries, such as the US, the average annual emissions of CO2 are 19,000kg per person - or about 500 trees worth.

Globally, we need to plant just over 100 trees for every person on the planet if we are to use them to remove the equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmpshere that humans add to it.

However, CO2 contributes 72% of the anthropogenic component of global warming; methane and nitrous oxide providing nearly all of the rest. To bring global warming into check requires that we reduce our total emmissions to the carbon equivalence of 7.5% of current levels. In short, to 'cure' global warming means a 92.5% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.

Whilst trees alone can't ever be the solution to global warming they can certainly be one of the ways in which we approach the problem.

Plus of course, there's all the other benefits such as those that Byderule mentioned.

Answer 10

6 billion trees a good start. The kind of tree and its location are different matters, but sounds like a good idea.

Answer 11

In one word the effect will be "AWESOME" :o).
And what if every person on Earth plants a tree for every year of their life ?
The effect will be "FANTABULOUS". wow
So what are we waiting for ? Come on lets go plant us some trees and make Mother Earth a better place !
Should we ?
Come on what are you thinking ?
Get up and go.
Dont forget your planting tools lets march !
Byderule !
Bella !
Trevor !

The March Chant is :-

PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !
PLANT MORE TREES !

Take Care and God Bless you !