[JoeFromSidney]

Just a minute here. Trees, like other plants, extract CO2 from the atmosphere and convert the carbon (and some hydrogen) into woody material, while releasing oxygen to the atmosphere. However, when the trees die, all that carbon is again oxidized. This is true whether the tree burns, or is eaten by termites, or consumed by fungi. From seed to maturity to death and decay, the net production of oxygen by trees is ZERO, and the net extraction of CO2 is likewise ZERO. The idea that plants produce oxygen comes from looking only at part of their life cycle.

If the greens were serious about reducing CO2, they'd advocate planting trees, turning them into paper, using the paper ONCE (no recycling), then burying the paper where the oxygen in the atmosphere couldn't get at it.

[Straight Vermonter]

You nailed it. The only net oxygen producers are the photoplankton. They don’t get consumed like land based plants because they die and fall to the bottom of the ocean and get covered by sediment.

The rain forests as the “Lungs of the Earth” is a load of crap.

[Sherman Logan]

If the greens were serious about reducing CO2, they'd advocate planting trees, turning them into paper, using the paper ONCE (no recycling), then burying the paper where the oxygen in the atmosphere couldn't get at it.

In almost any burial scenario, the paper decays and the carbon goes back into the atmosphere.

A more effective way to store carbon, temporarily but fairly long term, is to build houses out of wood. As long as the houses are maintained so the wood doesn't rot or burn, the carbon stays locked up.

[cherry]

if the greens were honest, they would acknowledge that YOUNG trees use up more CO2 than old trees....so using old trees for materials or fuel perhaps is a good and wise idea?