Restoration of world’s forests ’most powerful weapon’ against climate change

Restoration of world’s forests ’most powerful weapon’ against climate change

New findings suggest that trees maybe ’our most powerful weapon’ in the fight against climate change. British scientist and ecologist Thomas Crowther has led a study which concluded that replenishing the world’s forests would suck enough CO2 to negate out a decade of human emissions. However, the claims are contested by those who say that trees also emit CO2 when they die and decompose, or burn.

Simone
Simone
mouseRAT
mouseRAT 1 year

"New findings suggest"? Really? was it really that difficult to figure out that CO2 is plant food? When money is more important than common sense.

Jake Middleton
Jake Middleton 1 year

I’ll donate some eucalyptus to California if they want lol

Hannibal
Hannibal 1 year

It would be a dramatically cheaper solution than windmills and solar panels. Unfortunately Democrats won't go for it because none of their friends or company donors could continue to be enriched by the public. The Great Green Wall along the Sahara has been shown to combat desertification.

ConcealCarryProtect
ConcealCarryProtect 1 year

Oh my GOSH. Trees are GOOD?!? Who saw that loophole.

(Un)Fortunate Son
(Un)Fortunate Son 1 year

Hearing “CO2 is plant food” makes me sick. It is not plant food: too much of it makes photosynthesis less efficient.

Der Rikmeister
Der Rikmeister 1 year

So CO2 released at death negates a lifetime of CO2 removed. I see that they're applying the same rigorous scientific standards that make the climate change and "sustainable" crowds famous.

M.Twain
M.Twain 1 year

Maybe Trump could start a new peace corps like org., call it Rake Corps. It would be really cheap to fund, buying rakes in bulk would be cheap, hell we could have for-profit prisons make them.

Seth Racc
Seth Racc 1 year

I mean if all it takes is that then fucking push AOC off a cliff and plant some trees ffs

Novanglus
Novanglus 1 year

This really isn't groundbreaking. It's been shown that a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and a subsequent rise in temperature will increase vegetation and forestation around the planet. This increase would naturally combat the effects of increased CO2 levels. Thus showing that the earth will naturally correct itself.

Lord Flasheart
Lord Flasheart 1 year

Us Global Warming denialists have been saying this from the start. Welcome to the party 97% scientists. (97% scientist was first quoted by a Brisbane cartoonist John Cook)

Irrevocably Not!
Irrevocably Not! 1 year

Is this really such a grand, genius suggestion? We descended from the trees. Trees are nice. Forests are nice. This will shut the environmentaliats up and TREES ARE NICE.

Danny Searle
Danny Searle 1 year

new? I was banging on about planting 2M trees a year over a decade ago

Mark Oulaghan
Mark Oulaghan 1 year

next thing they will be telling us water in wet

Randy Whaley
Randy Whaley 1 year

African culture has to date destroyed more sq. miles of forest than any other "ethnic group" on the planet. Good luck forcing the slash-und-burn dumbasses in Africa to practice proper reforestation method...:-)

Crimson Jester
Crimson Jester 1 year

in other news.... Water is wet!

Nick Record
Nick Record 1 year

I have a revelation. Productivism and workaholism from capitalism has lead to cutting down a radical amount of trees in seeking profit, fossil fuel industries expend too much CO2 in search of profit, overproduction of plastics while suppressing hemp and recycling to protect PROFIT has destroyed wildlife. You wanna plant trees, fine, but how old will they get before we have to cut them down if we don't move towards socialism and prevent a reemergence of capitalism?

Korvin Carry
Korvin Carry 1 year

except methane is the much more dangerous factor, as it takes longer to break down, keeps heat in longer, theres almost as much of it, and what does it break down into (eventually)? CO2. so what we really need is bacteria capable of breaking down methane. theres a kind in the deep sea. we need to splice their DNA, if possible, so they can live closer to the surface, or splice the methane eating part into another bacteria.

Robloxman69
Robloxman69 1 year

I don't see why this is supposed to be new. Literally anyone who knows anything about the CO2 (I meant carbon cycle) cycle would know this. Theres a reason why the community calls old forests "carbon sinks". They're a place for carbon to be sucked out of the atmosphere and stored underground until it can be brought back up by geysers, volcanoes, etc. The whole problem with emissions isn't just burning gas and coal. One of the big issues is slash and burn practices that are done to clear land for beef production. These are usually done in tropical areas that have a shit ton of accumulated carbon in the soil and trees. That shit burns for weeks and then that carbon can't get back into the soil.

Hank Hill
Hank Hill 1 year

This is sad

Ekitchi Hoshi
Ekitchi Hoshi 1 year

Plants don't make carbon disappear, they store it. So yes, having more trees means taking CO2 out of the air and storing it. But there is a significant limit, it's not a permanent CO2 sink. Anytime you burn wood or plants, the CO2 goes right back into the air.

Top in World
Get the App