Maybe I’m looking at this too simply...won’t every tree, bush, etc. alive today eventually die, rot, and emit its carbon into the surrounding environment in some form?
“Maybe I’m looking at this too simply...won’t every tree, bush, etc. alive today eventually die, rot, and emit its carbon into the surrounding environment in some form?”
There you go, introducing science and logic into an environmental debate...
And here’s another thing to ponder: in times of drought, old trees feed wildfires, not only burning property, livestock, sometimes people—but they create a LOT of smoke, thanks to not clearing the old trees. Then again, liberals don’t tend to think logically...
Maybe I’m looking at this too simply...won’t every tree, bush, etc. alive today eventually die, rot, and emit its carbon into the surrounding environment in some form?
Yeah, but, see, then it's not anthropogenic carbon dioxide. It's natural.
This really is too stupid for words. The problem with fossil fuels, assuming you accept that carbon is a problem in the first place, is that they release carbon that was stored hundreds of millions of years ago. The carbon released by burning trees was recently taken out of the system, when the tree grew.
But that would be Gaia simply promoting the cycle of life (song track inserted here), not you evil human beings destroying everything in sight.
The global warming scam artists say the balance between "in the atmosphere" and "in the ground" is what matters. A decaying tree, on the ground, is harmless. But if you burn it, then trouble.
It's baloney. The carbon in the trees, etc. comes from CO2 in the air, in the first place.
There you go again! Don't confuse us with facts...