Would a solution to global warming simply be to plant more trees?

Question

If hundreds of thousands more trees were planted in North America, wouldn't that help slow down global warming?

Answer 1

It is a scam which will cost U plenty. The oil co. are charging 3 prices for your gasoline.

Answer 2

North America is not the ONLY country in the world

and planting trees is not the only solution

Stop all contamination

get rid of electricity made with fossil fuel

get rid of the internal combustion engine

stop all deforestation

stop all desertification

only allow sustainable farming

would be a good start.

And if it will stop Global Warming is another matter ,

there are other causes as well.

but father xmas is also not real

none of this will ever happen.

Answer 3

That would be one step that would help. Another step would be to recycle more. Way more.

Answer 4

You would think this is true since growing trees consumer more CO2 than they do oxygen thru respiration. But it's been found that they also emit methane which is a far more potent greenhouse gas (GHG) than CO2. If the tree is burned in a forest fire or as fuel, all that CO2 is released at once, but if it's harvested and made into building materials, the bulk of the CO2 remains sequestered.

Older trees keep CO2 sequestered but they consume about equal amounts of CO2 and oxygen (releasing CO2 as a result) so they're carbon-neutral. Only while they're growing do they act as carbon sinks. If you could find a way to deal with the methane emissions then planting a million acres of trees would be a good start at reducing CO2. Then you'd need to manage it responsibly to prevent the devastating fires we've seen created by modern 'hands-off' approaches to forest management.

Answer 5

It is a drop in the bucket really.  Algae in the sea is much more important.  When you plant a tree, you are necessarily removing the undergrowth, or substantially reducing it.  In the long run, it doesn't matter too much if you plant or not.  It might make you feel like you were doing something positive but like most suggestions regarding helping global warming, it amounts to mere symbolism over substance.  There are more trees now than when Columbus landed in the New World.  I don't want humans to decide which plant is most suited to a particular environment.  Should we also decide on which animals we like best and give those animals advantages over the more adapted animals because of some whim?  I don't think so.

Answer 6

I don't believe trees have much of an effect on global warming. The ozone layer is one of those things that takes centuries to thicken, and days to distroy

Answer 7

People are going to disagree as to whether or how much that would help, or even if there is global warming at all. I say, yes, we should plant more trees. No matter what you believe, it wouldn't hurt and would definitely help our environment and make us all feel better. Wouldn't it be nice if every one of us planted at least one tree this year? People should wake up and see what we're losing by slowly destroying all of our woodland for new housing developments, offices, shopping centers and parking lots. Once gone, it's gone for good!

Answer 8

Global Warming is a lot more complicated than that, only stupid people think like that, thinking that 'planting trees' will help the environment. No, planting trees wont do anything, because they will just get chopped again. The reason people say plant trees is because the Ozone layer is deteriorating, making oxygen more tight, and letting the sun's gamma rays inside the earth. Planting trees may slow this down, but it will not actually stop it on the whole

Answer 9

Where's Al Gore when you need him?  I'll bet he could answer this question in a snap!  He's probably making some adjustments to the Internet.  He invented it, you know!

Answer 10

No.There are many other facters in global warming.Emissions from automobiles and factories must stop completely, lifestyles and habits must change.It's almost at an irreversible state and it's a shame man is to blame.

Answer 11

Oh no, don't do that!  The global warming fanatics are planning on taking out all the CO2 from the atmosphere which would kill them anyway.

Answer 12

well not really because its takes 80 years to grow one(1) semi- full tree and its only takes a week to cut down a forest. i think this world has good intentions to make the world a better place but we are all to lazy to do it. im not saying planting trees in bad but its putting more money into peoples pockets..

Answer 13

Global warming is a myth!

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Answer 14

No because that would mean that more would get cut down for the already weak lumber industry.