Posted on 07/26/2017 6:58:39 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Redwood trees would be good. Let’s turn the entire left coast into a giant redwood forest.
The question “Which Trees Offset Global Warming Best?” is obviously one asked by a leftist idiot. The answer is there is no such thing as Global Warming. It’s NEVER been proven to exist. It’s a nightmare of leftist origins with absolutely no proof whatsoever of existence.
Ask a leftist, Democrat, opportunist (redundant) for proof, and all you will get is double talk. A piece of a jigsaw puzzle they claim exists, but they cannot ever produce the entire puzzle to prove their case.
Until the left can prove those pieces they show as proof actually are a part of an overall jigsaw puzzle picture, their claims are total BS.
Baba Wawa: If you were a twee what twee would you be?
From a scientific perspective the answer of course is christmas trees. You may have noticed that when many people put up christmas trees it gets cold; really, really cold.
Therefore, an effective way to fight global warming is to get a lot of people to put up christmas trees when it gets hot.
Anyone who denies the foregoing hates science and ignores the universal consensus of smart people everywhere.
Trees that fall on people.
Brilliant!
I believe that the ocean is the primary source of O2 from photosynthesis.
The ones we cut down and turn into lumber.
This sequesters the carbon for the longest time and is scientifically correct, even though it will explode liberal heads.
You can’t cut trees and make houses, that will lower housing costs and lower taxes. We won’t be able to pay non-whites to not work and create art on the side of the freeway (some people call this tagging, but they are racist).
I prefer a warm planet to a cold one myself. Earth has been a lot warmer in the past and plants, animals and humans thrived in those periods.
LIVING trees are a good place to start.
Plant, Baby, Plant!!
I did my part, planted close to 15 trees on my property.
How many did a sjw plant using their own money?
Does pot count?
This article claims that trees store a lot more C02. Wonder what the ultimate difference is - seems like conversion would be preferable to storage....
Right. IF carbon sequestration is the goal, then corn or algae is not much help. Corn, for example, grows rapidly, taking in lots of CO2, but, within a year (roughly), that corn or it’s derivatives are almost all decomposed, digested, burned (ethanol), etc., putting nearly as much CO2 right back into the atmosphere. The total “reduction” of CO2 is negligible. Algae’s cycle is usually faster.
OTOH, trees produce oxygen from CO2 and can store the carbon for a long time. My vote might go to Black Walnut: We have one in our yard that is growing nearly 4’ a year (good soil, plus nutrients & moisture from a nearby septic system). When we had our big ice storm in 2009, it was the only tree of any size in the neighborhood that was not seriously damaged. And, when the time comes for that tree to come down — it is already at almost harvestable size — it will produce wonderful wood for furniture that with care can last for generations. A slight “ding” (only so far as carbon storage is concerned) is the mass of large nuts (and their husks) it produces in the fall. Well, that and not turning an ankle on a nut!
Of course, even long lived trees’ lives are only an eye-blink in time compared to geologic time scales and processes, which are the REAL storers of CO2. Earth would have an atmosphere much like Venus, but luckily most of our CO2 is held in rocks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.