http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ons-of-dollars
Carry on...
If a bunch of people did a little, like plant trees, it has a big impact.
http://www.americanforests.org/our-programs/bigtree/
https://www.ancienttreearchive.org/about-us/
The acreage of forest die offs in the last 20 years is amazing. Trees do a lot to keep things cool, moisturize the atmosphere and clean the air and water.
While I'm a big part of the problem, driving cars long distances to ski and fart around, I'm planting a bunch of trees every year. My favorites are sitkas and western red cedars.
This isn't the Sierra Club talking. It's Citibank. Save our snow! Protect our winters! Jeez, our skiing or boarding kids and their kids are going to be fucked without change.
I keep reading this thread as "Cliti report" and have been very disappointed every time I click.
Heheh. Sorry for the disappointment. I'd post some tits or something for you, but we're not in the PR. :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkgt
See the LA Million Trees program:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publication...psw_gtr207.pdf
Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction. Over the 35-year planning horizon, the 1 million trees are projected to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) by 764,000 to 1.27 million tons, for the high- and low-mortality scenarios. Assuming this benefit is priced at $6.68 per ton, the corresponding value is $5.1 to $8.5
By improving air quality, the tree planting will enhance human health and environmental quality in Los Angeles. This benefit is valued at $53 to $83 million over the 35-year planning horizon. Interception of small particulate matter (PM10) and uptake of ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are especially valuable.
Los Angeles 1-Million Tree Canopy Cover Assessment Los Angeles 1-Million Tree Canopy Cover Assessment
million. Emission reductions at power plants associated with effects of the trees on building energy use (498,000 to 772,000 tons) are greater than biological sequestration of CO2 by the trees themselves (389,000 to 598,000 tons). A relatively small amount of CO2 is released during tree care and decomposition of dead biomass (101,000 to 123,000 tons). The CO2 reduction benefit varies widely based on tree size. For example, in the inland zone for the low-mortality scenario, the small tree annually sequesters and reduces emissions by only 5 and 55 lb per tree on average, compared to 220 and 150 lb for the large tree. Air quality improvement. By improving air quality, the tree planting will enhance human health and environmental quality in Los Angeles. This benefit is valued at $53 to $83 million over the 35-year planning horizon. Interception of small particulate matter (PM10) and uptake of ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are especially valuable. The 1-million-tree planting project is estimated to intercept and reduce power plant emissions of particulate matter by 1,846 to 2,886 tons over the 35-year period for the high- and low-mortality scenarios, respectively. The value of this benefit ranges from $19 to $29 million, or 35 percent of total air quality benefits. The 1 million trees are projected to reduce O3 by 2,430 to 3,813 tons, with average annual deposition rates ranging from 0.25 to 0.35 lb per medium tree in the low-mortality scenario for the coastal and inland zones, respectively. Ozone uptake is valued at $17.9 to $28.1 million over the project life for the high- and low-mortality scenarios, or 34 percent of total air quality benefits. Uptake of NO2, an O3 precursor, is estimated to range from 1,949 to 3,039 tons, with a value of $14.6 to $22.8 million for the high- and low-mortality scenarios over the 35-year period. This benefit accounts for 27 percent of the total air quality benefit. The small remaining benefit is reduced power plant emissions of volatile organic compounds from cooling energy savings. We found that the benefit values reported here are reasonable when compared with previously reported findings from similar analyses for the same region. However, it is important to note limitations of this study and to identify sources of error. These limitations are discussed fully in the “Discussion” section of this report. We conclude this study with a discussion of ways to successfully disseminate data, to implement the 1-million-trees program, and future research needs. The Center for Urban Forest Research proposes a collaboration with other scientists in southern California to study the effects of trees on the social, economic, and environmental health of Los Angeles and its nearly 4 million residents.
Is this study bs? http://ens-newswire.com/2015/03/30/e...deforestation/
Off the top of my head, without spending time looking up sources again, yes and no. When I saw it a few months back, I seem to recall that green cover actually is increasing while carbon stored in biomass is simultaneously decreasing (ETA: or something like that). I don't really feel like looking it up again though.Quote:
Originally Posted by steepconcrete
In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their "Science" - Forbes, Larry Bell, Feb 5, 2013
Question: Are trees better than brush at reducing co2? Obviously not per plant, but say 100 acres of thinned, healthy conifers, and 100 acres of overgrown brush. Disregarding overall forest health, fire adaptedness, etc., which sequesters more co2?
In the long run, healthy conifers, because of the fire issue. See:Quote:
Originally Posted by claymond
http://www.researchgate.net/publicat..._Nevada_forest
http://www.sierranevada.ca.gov/our-b.../aivibattc.pdf
At the moment, for example, the Sierra Nevada is a net emitter because of the drought, catastrophic wildfires, and poor historical forestry practices.
Since I need more posts before I can post stoke...Quote:
Originally Posted by claymond
Here's the thing, most of the co2 that plants take up is released back to the atmosphere, either by the metabolism of the plant, or after it dies and decomposes. To really sequester carbon, it needs to be stored somewhere for the long term, like in a rotating stock of biomass (like a mixed-age forest) or in the soil (which is what you really want).
So a fast growing forest will sequester carbon for a bit, but it will eventually reach a point where it is releasing as much as it takes up. What you really want is to get the C into the soil. Some forests are pretty good at this (temperate rainforests), some grasslands are great at it. Shrublands are generally shrublands because they are very moisture limited, hence low productivity, and are not great at it. In terms of globally significant opportunity, you're really looking at reforestation and agricultural practices to increase soil carbon stocks.
here's where I had a dumb joke about selling sex pills, but the spam filters got me, so good job there
Cool guys. Yeah, California's forests were on my mind when I posted that. Was the overload of brush temporarily reducing carbon dioxide.
Sure, until they burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by claymond
Yep. Solid post above. Most people just pad their count to get to the 10th post by posting stupid shit. You actually contributed. Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFJohnnyTyndall
The global warming summit in Paris is estimated to produce 300,000+ tons of co2. We're going to need to plant some more trees.
Yeah, I was listening to the news the other day and they interviewed a student activist from the East Bay. In Paris.
300,000 tons seems way too low.
great thread