Topic: Is planting trees actually good for the planet? - page 5. (Read 1061 times)
Is creating dopey threads in forum actually good for the planet?
Trees have any side effect? I guess there are none but there advantages are many. Shade, breading place for birds, provides fresh air and absorb carbon along with other toxic gases. Everyone of us should make a resolve to plant as much tress as he/she can.
yes it is green nature increases , cutting plants as affected the natural cycle of rain water , and flooding , air cycles and , several places are turning in to desserts and non of the people wants to leave there lack of water , rain and weather will not be suitable
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/
Quote
Key questions scientists will need to address are how global reforestation might affect Earth’s surface albedo (reflectivity) and evapotranspiration. In the near term and locally, says Saatchi, forest restoration may actually have a warming effect. As the trees mature, the new forest canopy cover would presumably make Earth’s surface albedo darker, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere during periods of snow cover, causing it to absorb more heat. Increasing forest cover, particularly in the tropics, will increase evapotranspiration, causing a cooling effect. With Earth already warming significantly due to greenhouse gas emissions, will forest reforestation on a global scale have a net warming or cooling effect on our planet, and will the benefits of reforested areas absorbing more carbon outweigh their increased heat absorption?
I really don't understand these our scientists. One day they are coming with the fact that deforestation is the reason why the air is not of good quality to breathe in and then they suggest that planting trees would solve the problem and the world began the planting of the trees even to the extent that we have a world planting tree day. Now, coming up with this means that they are saying we got it all wrong and we are even causing more damage with tree planting. It seems there is no way to please the ozone layer.
Planting trees is good for our environment but even after we know many times we cut down trees and destroy the environment. We also know that nature gives us oxygen even then we destroy nature for meaning, Despite knowing everything we are calling ourselves a danger.
By the population do increase, the resources we need is totally increasing too. By the non-added and rotating cycle of this world we couldn't easily claim the resources we need. We can't totally add more place to live soon unless from leaving our planet but soon we can see the future full of problems in our planet.
This is a very easy question. Planting trees is always better than not planting them. Think of how the planet would look like if we weren't exploiting its resources. Just like cities in all those apocalypse movies where the jungle takes over and animals roam the streets. You could pretty much see it in I am legend and you can see it if you to to visit the lost ancient cities in South America.
Since we are destroying plant life we should do something to restore them.
Since we are destroying plant life we should do something to restore them.
Planting trees is good for our environment but even after we know many times we cut down trees and destroy the environment. We also know that nature gives us oxygen even then we destroy nature for meaning, Despite knowing everything we are calling ourselves a danger.
When i die, i become a tree. It be a hard choice of which particular tree, oak, birch... but i think will settle for some kind of nut. 
"Green cemeteries" is still in the start up phase and the burial of the body in embryo shape is not even legal in some countries.
https://www.capsulamundi.it/en/
Will certainly invest in a cemetery forest plot when available. Instead of wasting wood on coffin it rater be in a sacred forest.
"Green cemeteries" is still in the start up phase and the burial of the body in embryo shape is not even legal in some countries.
https://www.capsulamundi.it/en/
Will certainly invest in a cemetery forest plot when available. Instead of wasting wood on coffin it rater be in a sacred forest.
I'd prefer the cremated variant. I find the whole body under a tree a bit morbid. If this every becomes a thing in my country there's a change that the trees can get uprooted and expose the skeletons.
I'd prefer my ashes just scattered up the mountains to fertilize the forest but I see the benefit of sticking remains under a tree. It's no longer just a tree - it's a living remain of a loved one. That gives people more incentives to keep the tree alive.
That was my thought as well. Think of a hurricane coming by and the next day people walking down the street see a row fallen trees with human bones between the roots.
I'm sure they'd start making horror movies about tree spirits and stuff on a grand scale.
I like trees and we should have more of them especially if you think of the rate at which we are losing them. Australia lost so many trees that it will take decades to replant them.
there is this startup from the EU,
that is producing protein out of CO2 dense air
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/07/15/Solar-Foods-makes-protein-out-of-thin-air-This-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-food-there-is
this will solve in the long run the so called climate crisis
that is producing protein out of CO2 dense air
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/07/15/Solar-Foods-makes-protein-out-of-thin-air-This-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-food-there-is
this will solve in the long run the so called climate crisis
No. Co2 is at the bottom of the energy ladder.
The need for timber keeps counting even when more and more alternative things have come into usage. When we cut a tree for our need, we need to plant a tree. This will keep the ecosystem stable. Around the globe the ground water level has decreased drastically. Some cities have gone out of water and in few cities zero water day is announced and people are adviced to use water in a limited manner. So, in one way or other planting trees is good for the planet.
I agree, we really need more trees to be honest because we get something from it. It gives oxygen that all livibg things need. We made paper through it. From the bush fire that happened to different countries especially in australia, we lost lot of trees and by that we need to recover it so have to plant more so that future of earth will be a good and survive more. 
there is this startup from the EU,
that is producing protein out of CO2 dense air
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/07/15/Solar-Foods-makes-protein-out-of-thin-air-This-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-food-there-is
this will solve in the long run the so called climate crisis
that is producing protein out of CO2 dense air
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/07/15/Solar-Foods-makes-protein-out-of-thin-air-This-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-food-there-is
this will solve in the long run the so called climate crisis
The need for timber keeps counting even when more and more alternative things have come into usage. When we cut a tree for our need, we need to plant a tree. This will keep the ecosystem stable. Around the globe the ground water level has decreased drastically. Some cities have gone out of water and in few cities zero water day is announced and people are adviced to use water in a limited manner. So, in one way or other planting trees is good for the planet.
Yes. It is possible that planting trees is good for the planet because it actually is good for the planet. I made that as simple as possible because it seems that some of you are unable to understand basic science. This has been proved over and over. See all of the science stuff and articles from various news sources documenting that FACT.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/01/silver-bullet-to-suck-co2-from-air-and-halt-climate-change-ruled-out
https://apnews.com/8ac33686b64a4fbc991997a72683b1c5 - trillion trees, yes I know.
This is the simplest method we currently have to fight climate change, and who hates trees?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/01/silver-bullet-to-suck-co2-from-air-and-halt-climate-change-ruled-out
https://apnews.com/8ac33686b64a4fbc991997a72683b1c5 - trillion trees, yes I know.
This is the simplest method we currently have to fight climate change, and who hates trees?
Most people know that trees are good for them. They absorb carbon dioxide, thus purifying the air for our breathing pleasure. Carbon dioxide is also one of the main greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to rising temperatures and climate change.
I'm sorry, but news isn't a credible source.
And everything that's written is widely known but it doesn't change the fact that trees make the Earths surface darker and cause it to absorb more heat and increase the global temperature. Whether or not the decrease in CO2 will counter the effect is not known.
And that's from NASA, not from Washingnton Post.
The only literate reply so far was franky1 and I appreciate that, others are just mambo-jambo fed to you with no facts.
It is true that foliage in certain areas won't make the surface darker, but not in every area.
Planting trees in some areas might prove itself harmful for the Earths temperature.
Apart from producing oxygen, and stabilising the water table,trees have other important functions. They provide homes for a variety of wildlife, and help to return minerals into the soil. Trees used to be used to clean the soil in decommissioned petrol filling stations, but it takes 20 or 30 years for the trees to do this naturally. Modern builders are not prepared to wait that long, so they cut down the trees, and build on the land. This means that the new occupiers of the land are poisoned slowly. Of course this helps to fund the big pharma companies.
Planting monocultures can completely destroy the native cultures.
Well the simple answer to what the op asked is obviously yes. Though i doubt that what's indicated in the article will actually happen. We're expanding our structural and industrial growth, hence we won't have that much space to plant trees on to have that effect that the article mentioned. For me, just plant when and where you can.
There's plenty of space to plant. The question is should we..
The article makes sense, I think we should wait a few years or so until the science and mathematics becomes more advance before planting a shit load of trees in a desperate attempt to resolve a green problem that we've haven't quite gotten to the root of yet (no pun intended). The technology is advancing, I know we need to at least prepare a temporary solution to at least alleviate the issue, while we spend the time advancing our sciences to a point that we can actually directly fix the problem.
Just my two cents!
We don't need a sht load of trees, we just need to plant trees. That's it. Even a single tree per person alive is already quite a lot imo. Just like how having none or little is bad, having too many may also be bad for the ecosystem. Also, the tech advancement you're saying is the cause for problems that are arising in the ecosystem, and the tree plantings are the ones that are solving it lmao. If it stopped, I'd say that any type of fix done after that period of time would need hundreds of years before it could take into effect. We can plant trees while finding for a direct fix imo, no need to stop doing such because we don't know it's effects, as long as we regulate it, I'd say all is fine. Just my two cents!
Has anyone ever told you that trees sort of plant themselves? It's pretty cool how it works, too. Humans may plant the wrong ones, but nature sees to it that the right ones live in every single spot.
The article makes sense, I think we should wait a few years or so until the science and mathematics becomes more advance before planting a shit load of trees in a desperate attempt to resolve a green problem that we've haven't quite gotten to the root of yet (no pun intended). The technology is advancing, I know we need to at least prepare a temporary solution to at least alleviate the issue, while we spend the time advancing our sciences to a point that we can actually directly fix the problem.
Just my two cents!
We don't need a sht load of trees, we just need to plant trees. That's it. Even a single tree per person alive is already quite a lot imo. Just like how having none or little is bad, having too many may also be bad for the ecosystem. Also, the tech advancement you're saying is the cause for problems that are arising in the ecosystem, and the tree plantings are the ones that are solving it lmao. If it stopped, I'd say that any type of fix done after that period of time would need hundreds of years before it could take into effect. We can plant trees while finding for a direct fix imo, no need to stop doing such because we don't know it's effects, as long as we regulate it, I'd say all is fine. Just my two cents!
The article makes sense, I think we should wait a few years or so until the science and mathematics becomes more advance before planting a shit load of trees in a desperate attempt to resolve a green problem that we've haven't quite gotten to the root of yet (no pun intended). The technology is advancing, I know we need to at least prepare a temporary solution to at least alleviate the issue, while we spend the time advancing our sciences to a point that we can actually directly fix the problem.
Just my two cents!
Just my two cents!
Wait a minute. You mean we might or might not have some huge global warming problem and we don't even know if planting trees is good?
Well the simple answer to what the op asked is obviously yes. Though i doubt that what's indicated in the article will actually happen. We're expanding our structural and industrial growth, hence we won't have that much space to plant trees on to have that effect that the article mentioned. For me, just plant when and where you can.
The article makes sense, I think we should wait a few years or so until the science and mathematics becomes more advance before planting a shit load of trees in a desperate attempt to resolve a green problem that we've haven't quite gotten to the root of yet (no pun intended). The technology is advancing, I know we need to at least prepare a temporary solution to at least alleviate the issue, while we spend the time advancing our sciences to a point that we can actually directly fix the problem.
Just my two cents!
Just my two cents!
I don't think it's realistic to simply rely on planting trees to reduce to co2 levels but having trees really have benefits. For me in a hot location, the biggest would be temperature control. Have enough of them in the right places and it could cut down on electricity used for cooling.
First time I saw a leaf blower (I don't live in the US) I thought it was absolutely stupid and lazy. My same view on dishwashers. Like, would it kill you if you use your hands for 5-10 minutes?
The only downside to trees is that people use leaf blowers to blow their leaves onto their neighbour's garden. Then the neighbour uses his leaf blower to blow them back. The lazy far gits should get some exercise, and pick up the leaves.
First time I saw a leaf blower (I don't live in the US) I thought it was absolutely stupid and lazy. My same view on dishwashers. Like, would it kill you if you use your hands for 5-10 minutes?
The only downside to trees is that people use leaf blowers to blow their leaves onto their neighbour's garden. Then the neighbour uses his leaf blower to blow them back. The lazy far gits should get some exercise, and pick up the leaves.
Jump to: