Topic: One Million Trees - page 2. (Read 566 times)
We need to consider tree planting in more detail.
Here in NYC there's an initiative of planting one million trees. And I'm all for planting more trees, but not just for the sake of it, and for the celebrity behind it to feel good about herself. If a home owner plants a tree there's a lot of planning involved. They analyze the perfect spot, how it matches the surrounding, if it's needed, etc. But in this situation it just plant one million trees for the heck of it. Cut a square, throw a bunch of dirt, the spot doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's in front of a stoop creating multiple bottlenecks in a busy block. The dirt gets all over, and half of the trees die anyway.
It really shows that human nature of not really thinking about your surrounding. In this case instead of causing pollution it's trees.
Random example, though not the best because if not a busy sidewalk.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6757113,-73.9857819,3a,75y,242.04h,83.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suHVYMwoyioFEW5PQqyvkfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It really shows that human nature of not really thinking about your surrounding. In this case instead of causing pollution it's trees.
Random example, though not the best because if not a busy sidewalk.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6757113,-73.9857819,3a,75y,242.04h,83.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suHVYMwoyioFEW5PQqyvkfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A million trees would be about 16 square miles at 20' intervals. However, if we planted the seeds at 1" intervals, it would only take 1/6 of one acre or an area about 70 x 100'. So, this is starting to look interesting. One person with an average size piece of dirt could plant the million trees.
Are those NY political hacks paying for this or giving tax discounts? Because if the sole requirement is the "planting", there's one heck of a deal here. Plus, think about all the delicious tiny shoots that the rats, squirrels and rabbits can eat.
It seems to me that if every person on the planet is attached to the fact that he planted at least 1 or 2 trees during his life, it would qualitatively be able to change life on the planet. We need to take care of more than one city, such as new York, we need to do it all over the world, because the Earth is our common home.
That was impossible to happen because we have a limited location to place in the future. It's surely cut again but that was good idea for atleast the number of trees would be grown.
It seems to me that if every person on the planet is attached to the fact that he planted at least 1 or 2 trees during his life, it would qualitatively be able to change life on the planet.
I myself have planted exactly 251 trees, so I guess at least 100 people can have a pass there.Here is this little to known fact about trees, anyone that is aware of the existence of geological era know as carbon, can ask himself this question. From where and why all this coal that we mine comes from? Those are millions and millions of metric tons of coal we are talking about. As we know, this mineral has formed about 360 millions years ago, from fallen trees and other plants. Turn on your imagination now; what happened that all those plants felt simultaneously, throughout entire planet? What forced them to slip underground and turn in to a "rock"? Answer may surprise you, modern scholars are of opinion that trees (and those where some really massive trunks, 2,3 times bigger than those of today) overgrew the planet's capability of their sustainment! Trees caused natural yet cataclysmic climate change to a point of crash and extinction. Trees are killers dude!
My point is, exaggeration in any direction can lead to bad things, let's not plant in to oblivion because it's trendy, reason is the key.
It seems to me that if every person on the planet is attached to the fact that he planted at least 1 or 2 trees during his life, it would qualitatively be able to change life on the planet. We need to take care of more than one city, such as new York, we need to do it all over the world, because the Earth is our common home.
God Bless, Move Forward!
The trees will make beautiful stumps in a few decades and the wood can be used for human purposes.
Trees have a nasty tenancy to damage concrete of which NYC has an abundance as the roots grow. But that just creates more jobs for people tearing up the sidewalk and re-doing it.
Concrete itself requires quite a large input of energy which will increase the 'carbon footprint'. That would be a negative if CO2 had anything to do with 'global warming', but the whole 'man-made global climate change' thing is a laughable hoax promulgated by, among others, the multinational energy companies themselves who's board-members thought up the scheme decades ago in order to consolidate, magnify, and solidify the power they'd amassed during the industrial revolution.
The trees will make beautiful stumps in a few decades and the wood can be used for human purposes.
Trees have a nasty tenancy to damage concrete of which NYC has an abundance as the roots grow. But that just creates more jobs for people tearing up the sidewalk and re-doing it.
Concrete itself requires quite a large input of energy which will increase the 'carbon footprint'. That would be a negative if CO2 had anything to do with 'global warming', but the whole 'man-made global climate change' thing is a laughable hoax promulgated by, among others, the multinational energy companies themselves who's board-members thought up the scheme decades ago in order to consolidate, magnify, and solidify the power they'd amassed during the industrial revolution.
Omg, the other day I was thinking about how the tress also destroyes the concrete, and they recently fixed this block because of it. But I never thought of the fact that the concrete requires a large input of energy that increases the carbon dioxide. I will take some pictures of some of the things I talked about here.
I don't think I really even read the initial post. My bad.
Trees are nice and they make a more pleasant surrounding for most people. That in and of itself is adequate reason to try have them. One does not need a bunch of pseudo-scientific (at best) hype about 'carbon footprint' and general virtue signaling which is disgustingly obvious a phony.
It is better to just make good engineering decisions about how to use trees for what they are good for and try to minimize the negative aspects of them of which there are plenty. The disadvantages are even greater when trying to dense-pack the plebs into UN Agenda 21 'human habitats'.
The shade effect of trees is great. One can achieve that with awnings which capture rain-water and they can house solar panels (if/when economically feasible) as well. My current house has a lot of concrete and awnings over most of the property. That has it's advantages as well, and in my current location especially. I've got some modest sized trees in barrels (which makes me feel like I am torturing them), and one large shade tree which, sadly, I'm going to need to get rid of for certain development work. In another decade it really would be creating a genuine hazard to life and limb for both myself and my neighbors.
It is worth note that trees themselves are a significant detriment to smaller plants. They get big in order to maximize their gather of solar energy so they starve out everything below them, or try to. What most 'modern eductated' people fail to realize is that if you cut a tree, a ton of other plants below it start to grow like crazy. Very little solar energy ever touches bare ground in any circumstance. So-called 'clear cutting' does NOT leave a lifeless piece of ground for more than about a week (unless it is followed up by dosing with defoliants which is common and is, in my opinion, sort of a problem.) Logging tends to promote 'biodiversity' since it gives environments for 'fringe' plants and animals to live for a while until the forest grows back again.
God Bless, Move Forward!
The trees will make beautiful stumps in a few decades and the wood can be used for human purposes.
Trees have a nasty tenancy to damage concrete of which NYC has an abundance as the roots grow. But that just creates more jobs for people tearing up the sidewalk and re-doing it.
Concrete itself requires quite a large input of energy which will increase the 'carbon footprint'. That would be a negative if CO2 had anything to do with 'global warming', but the whole 'man-made global climate change' thing is a laughable hoax promulgated by, among others, the multinational energy companies themselves who's board-members thought up the scheme decades ago in order to consolidate, magnify, and solidify the power they'd amassed during the industrial revolution.
The trees will make beautiful stumps in a few decades and the wood can be used for human purposes.
Trees have a nasty tenancy to damage concrete of which NYC has an abundance as the roots grow. But that just creates more jobs for people tearing up the sidewalk and re-doing it.
Concrete itself requires quite a large input of energy which will increase the 'carbon footprint'. That would be a negative if CO2 had anything to do with 'global warming', but the whole 'man-made global climate change' thing is a laughable hoax promulgated by, among others, the multinational energy companies themselves who's board-members thought up the scheme decades ago in order to consolidate, magnify, and solidify the power they'd amassed during the industrial revolution.
Omg, the other day I was thinking about how the tress also destroyes the concrete, and they recently fixed this block because of it. But I never thought of the fact that the concrete requires a large input of energy that increases the carbon dioxide. I will take some pictures of some of the things I talked about here.
God Bless, Move Forward!
The trees will make beautiful stumps in a few decades and the wood can be used for human purposes.
Trees have a nasty tenancy to damage concrete of which NYC has an abundance as the roots grow. But that just creates more jobs for people tearing up the sidewalk and re-doing it.
Concrete itself requires quite a large input of energy which will increase the 'carbon footprint'. That would be a negative if CO2 had anything to do with 'global warming', but the whole 'man-made global climate change' thing is a laughable hoax promulgated by, among others, the multinational energy companies themselves who's board-members thought up the scheme decades ago in order to consolidate, magnify, and solidify the power they'd amassed during the industrial revolution.
The trees will make beautiful stumps in a few decades and the wood can be used for human purposes.
Trees have a nasty tenancy to damage concrete of which NYC has an abundance as the roots grow. But that just creates more jobs for people tearing up the sidewalk and re-doing it.
Concrete itself requires quite a large input of energy which will increase the 'carbon footprint'. That would be a negative if CO2 had anything to do with 'global warming', but the whole 'man-made global climate change' thing is a laughable hoax promulgated by, among others, the multinational energy companies themselves who's board-members thought up the scheme decades ago in order to consolidate, magnify, and solidify the power they'd amassed during the industrial revolution.
We need billions of trees to fill up gap due to fire in Amazon and Australia forests. It’s last wake up calls from nature to plant trees that can inhale toxic gases while giving us fresh air to breath. Tree are free tools supplied by nature, all they want is don’t cut them to work for us.
Yes, trees are very important and we need more of it. But due to what's happening, forest fires everywhere trees are being burned and by any means will really affect our planet. Trees make the air we breathe, it is the lungs of our planet filtering the good ones and expelling what is not needed.
snip
a UK flight company Ryan air done a study. they realised to offset their carbon emissions they would need to make the UK 12% forest.
snip
That was a lot to munch on and quite frankly I haven't looked it up yet. I would say that it's always good to plant trees but I agree that we probably can no longer grow enough of them to absorb all that co2. It's probably just not trees that act like carbon sink anyway, if these people are really want to reduce the levels in the atmosphere, they'd have to find another way.
Also, I saw people joking that Greta Thunberg should be sent to the Philippines. How dare that volcano spew greenhouse gases!
We need billions of trees to fill up gap due to fire in Amazon and Australia forests. It’s last wake up calls from nature to plant trees that can inhale toxic gases while giving us fresh air to breath. Tree are free tools supplied by nature, all they want is don’t cut them to work for us.
We all should plant more trees Plant trees save the environment We need to plant trees on the roof or courtyard of our house for the benefit of the tree. We take oxygen from the tree use it as fuel the tree gives us shade protects us from the heat of the sun Also trees protect the beauty of our city You need to plant more trees and take care of it.
just some fun facts
"The average carbon absorbtion was 88 pounds per tree per year. (By contrast, the average American is responsible for emitting about 44,000 pounds of carbon annually."
that means each person needs 500 tree's.
a family of 4 ends up needing 2000 tree's. im not sure people actually have roofspace for 2000 trees
as for the topics 1m tree's.that only offsets about 2,000 people.
new yorks 8mill population =4,000,000,000.. yep 4 billion tree's needed just for new york.
with a 2 metre square space per tree, requires 8000km2 offset space
new york living area is only 800km2
meaning it needs 10x more land then the land people live on just to offset new york
.. in short for the lung health risk. its easier to let the oil/coal reserves deplete(as they will anyway in this century) and shift to renewables and use electric cars to bring down the carbon used.. rather than it is to find enough land to plant tree's
..
i personally think trees are great. but more for thewildlife and water cycle arena. climate change should concentrate on water cycle for the climate and as a separate project reducing emissions for the lung health. planting trees will never offset emissions at this level. and carbon is not a big player in the temperature arena. water is. so planting tree's projects need to actually understand why a rainforest is called a rain forest and not a carbon forest. and truly understand some of the numbers needed to even make a change
by the way. tree's in urban area's dont help the water cycle.
We all should plant more trees Plant trees save the environment We need to plant trees on the roof or courtyard of our house for the benefit of the tree. We take oxygen from the tree use it as fuel the tree gives us shade protects us from the heat of the sun Also trees protect the beauty of our city You need to plant more trees and take care of it.
Not only plant trees but also take care of them. Problem is we plant trees and then abondan them. Almost half of trees plantation went useless because of no care after plantation. If we want to give a good future to our kids we have to plant trees.
I agree, most trees being abandoned after planting trees. Sad but true. On the other hand once it wss being take csre it has a big impact to our environment. It gives life to be honest. Everytime I see lot of trees I feel calm. Let us plant more trees because without them its very to live since they are the main source of oxygen in this world.Qatar is so hot its capital city now has air conditioning OUTSIDE to protect people from summer temperatures which soar to a blistering 115°F. While trees can do that for free, 24/7/365 and without requiring any maintenance. If we don't plant trees on emergency basis we will have to do such artificial and expensive treatments globally. Sadly we are more interested in cutting trees rather planting.
I think planting trees is always good, whether you're trying to say it's to reduce co2 or for shade, etc. The problem is when it's not properly planned. For example the trees should be planted in areas where they are expected to not be disturbed for decades. No point in planting them near road that might be widened a few years later.
I also share Darker's apprehension about maintenance. It should be part of the planning otherwise it'll be like buying a kid a bunny for Easter - it'll be dead within a week.
I also share Darker's apprehension about maintenance. It should be part of the planning otherwise it'll be like buying a kid a bunny for Easter - it'll be dead within a week.
Events like planting 1 million tree in one day are useless as majority of such plantations were not taken care after the event is over. Trees serves as lungs of earth and life on earth is possible only if we have sufficient trees left that can keep the temperature under control.
Especially if they are in areas where it'll require more effort to establish a forest. For example a new mangrove forest practically takes care of itself, a new forest in California or Australia would have to be regularly watered for them not to wither and the brush around them constantly trimmed.
Not only plant trees but also take care of them. Problem is we plant trees and then abondan them. Almost half of trees plantation went useless because of no care after plantation. If we want to give a good future to our kids we have to plant trees.
I agree, most trees being abandoned after planting trees. Sad but true. On the other hand once it wss being take csre it has a big impact to our environment. It gives life to be honest. Everytime I see lot of trees I feel calm. Let us plant more trees because without them its very to live since they are the main source of oxygen in this world.
I love to support that idea we should plant more trees to keep the enviroment clean.
The world is so poluted and more trees are being cut down or burn out.
The world is so poluted and more trees are being cut down or burn out.
I think planting trees is always good, whether you're trying to say it's to reduce co2 or for shade, etc. The problem is when it's not properly planned. For example the trees should be planted in areas where they are expected to not be disturbed for decades. No point in planting them near road that might be widened a few years later.
I also share Darker's apprehension about maintenance. It should be part of the planning otherwise it'll be like buying a kid a bunny for Easter - it'll be dead within a week.
I also share Darker's apprehension about maintenance. It should be part of the planning otherwise it'll be like buying a kid a bunny for Easter - it'll be dead within a week.
Events like planting 1 million tree in one day are useless as majority of such plantations were not taken care after the event is over. Trees serves as lungs of earth and life on earth is possible only if we have sufficient trees left that can keep the temperature under control.
I remember seeing on the TV that some private reforest projects are choosing to plant trees that could not be used for lumber to discourage loggers.
a UK flight company Ryan air done a study. they realised to offset their carbon emissions they would need to make the UK 12% forest.
by this i do not mean ryan air are some massive aviation company. infact they are a small company. if you add in all other flights around the UK by other flight companies the UK would need to be over 100% forest (more trees than land available
and thats just for flights.
cars and trucks actually combine to produce more co2 than aviation. so to ofset UK numbers forrests would need to be several layers of the land mass of the uk.
but what people keep forgetting is that climate science is about land temperatures. which water vaper controls land temperatures. not carbon.
carbon science on climate is about the percent of heat kept in at the upper atmosphere.. HEAT RISES not falls.
but guess what
carbon is not causing it to get warmer up there
its the ground level temperature control that is the 'risk' and water has more effect n the ground to cloud area
carbon at ground level is not a temperature of ground level killer. its a lung health killer.. water (ice or drought) is the concern of ground level
I think planting trees is always good, whether you're trying to say it's to reduce co2 or for shade, etc. The problem is when it's not properly planned. For example the trees should be planted in areas where they are expected to not be disturbed for decades. No point in planting them near road that might be widened a few years later.
I also share Darker's apprehension about maintenance. It should be part of the planning otherwise it'll be like buying a kid a bunny for Easter - it'll be dead within a week.
I also share Darker's apprehension about maintenance. It should be part of the planning otherwise it'll be like buying a kid a bunny for Easter - it'll be dead within a week.
Jump to: