Yeah and what do you think that happens to the carbon when said tree dies?
Trees are a great way to capture carbon once, that’s it. If you build a Forrest somewhere, that forest will take x tonnes of carbon and that’s it. 30 years later when the first trees there start dying , that carbonnwill go back again and new trees that replace it will take it again, etc.
You will need to plant billions of trees to make even a dent in global warming
Indeed, we will need to plant billions of trees, and losing any more of them that we already have than we absolutely have to isn’t going to help anything. Is this really news to you?
Meanwhile, you can cut down trees for materials and let more of them grow. Don’t have to level forests to do it either.
Oh, and again, larger trees sequester more carbon on less land versus smaller ones -it’s more efficient if we can keep them around.
Its truly bizarre how anti-tree you’re being for supposedly also being worried for the world’s forests. A substantial portion of the remaining forests are home to evergreens.
Trees used for materials are replaced by more trees. That’s more than “once”, and I spelled it out for you in that second paragraph already.
Anti-tree? Yeah, you literally seem to have a problem with the notion that specific varieties of tree are worth trying to save. You may not be anti-all-trees, but you’ve sure wasted some breath trash-talking a particularly useful type of tree.
I’m not going to dignify your lack of argument and ignoring my own arguments by specifically calling you anti-evergreen or some shit. Anti-tree it is.
The trees that make good Christmas trees are also some of the best at removing Carbon from the atmosphere year-round. Related: they grow in forests.
… but sure, let’s criticize efforts to save one sort of tree because its not the saving of all trees … by itself.
Yeah and what do you think that happens to the carbon when said tree dies?
Trees are a great way to capture carbon once, that’s it. If you build a Forrest somewhere, that forest will take x tonnes of carbon and that’s it. 30 years later when the first trees there start dying , that carbonnwill go back again and new trees that replace it will take it again, etc.
You will need to plant billions of trees to make even a dent in global warming
Indeed, we will need to plant billions of trees, and losing any more of them that we already have than we absolutely have to isn’t going to help anything. Is this really news to you?
Meanwhile, you can cut down trees for materials and let more of them grow. Don’t have to level forests to do it either.
Oh, and again, larger trees sequester more carbon on less land versus smaller ones -it’s more efficient if we can keep them around.
Its truly bizarre how anti-tree you’re being for supposedly also being worried for the world’s forests. A substantial portion of the remaining forests are home to evergreens.
You’re missing the point that trees will only sequester a limited amount of carbon, once.
Yeah, I’m all for planting more trees, that’s always good. Calling me “anti tree” is just “I have no good argument so I’ll just throw insults”
Trees used for materials are replaced by more trees. That’s more than “once”, and I spelled it out for you in that second paragraph already.
Anti-tree? Yeah, you literally seem to have a problem with the notion that specific varieties of tree are worth trying to save. You may not be anti-all-trees, but you’ve sure wasted some breath trash-talking a particularly useful type of tree.
I’m not going to dignify your lack of argument and ignoring my own arguments by specifically calling you anti-evergreen or some shit. Anti-tree it is.