Topic: Is planting trees actually good for the planet? - page 6. (Read 1062 times)
Tree's benefits are enormous, you can plant them without any fear of any side effects. The problem is we think too much for planting trees but no attention is paid while cutting these trees. There is no artificial way to fix the amount of carbon in the air, only trees can remove carbon from the air.
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.
I think that planting trees is actually good for the planet it would give us shelter and clean air.
If you could compare the air in a city with less tree and the countryside the air in country side is much more fresh and clean it is also colder in that area.
It is because of pollution, is that tree helps to educe pollution of air? If you could compare the air in a city with less tree and the countryside the air in country side is much more fresh and clean it is also colder in that area.
I think that planting trees is actually good for the planet it would give us shelter and clean air.
If you could compare the air in a city with less tree and the countryside the air in country side is much more fresh and clean it is also colder in that area.
If you could compare the air in a city with less tree and the countryside the air in country side is much more fresh and clean it is also colder in that area.
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.
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.
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.
Growing greenery is really good for our planet. Planting trees helps to keep the air fresh and cool. Without greenery the environment will be polluted, people will breathe polluted air. Increasing disease, dangerous diseases. People should plant more trees to protect the environment.
Saatchi id a globalist organisation, so of course they will try to reduce reforestation. Trees stabilise the land and help to resyore th groundwater that is needed for farming. At the moment, the glabalists are trying to reduce farming to create famine,
Don't let them win, plant a tree.
Don't let them win, plant a tree.
Should the extra CO2 make it easier for the plants to grow&expand?
Planting trees can be never act as the deforestation we made for the last few centuries because it takes decades for a tree to get completely grown which could help the ecosystem to get stabilized but new plants and trees take underground water to grow which is another problem since most places already drought climbing up due to climate changes.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/
as you can see they are actually talking about rain, snow, shadows and evaporation.. the true reasons for land temperature changes.(water cycle not carbon)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.
below is just the upper atmosphere that does not have the same extent of causality of ground temperatures as water.
Quote
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?
.. anyway
different tree's in different climates can help
for instance small foliage tall trunk trees are better for the northern hemisphere.
where as large foliage for the equator
as for the carbon absorbtion (separate issue due to lung health) bamboo can be planted tighter together and traps more carbon per year than say an oak. and by harvesting and replanting keeps the location in an optimum carbon sink. due to most growth related to younger tree's than older trees.
if you imaging the wide diameter of a oak foliage and the multiple trumps of bamboo than can be planted in that same diameter. the maths makes bamboo better option
..
the true cause of temperature rise is most water/rain ends up in drains and sewers and not just settling on land. thus less evaporation thus less clouds thus less rain thus drought
..
here is the big revealer.. when nasa studied terraforming the moon/mars they were not looking for carbon. they were looking for water. they know water is more important
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?
Jump to: