There are different schools of thought on whether tree planting can reverse global warming. Some think it is just what we need to stop climate change once and for all, but others are not so optimistic. Before examining all the different opinions on the climate-saving power of trees, let’s see how carbon sequestration works.
The process of photosynthesis through which plants increase their biomass requires carbon dioxide, amongst other things. CO2 is responsible for 33% to 60% of plant growth. So for plants to survive, they need carbon dioxide, and there is an excess amount in the atmosphere already. So forests absorb and store carbon, and they also help our lands store it as well. In tropical forests, 50% of CO2 is stored in plant biomass, and the other half is in the soil.
Trees all over the world help to maintain the CO2 balance of the planet. Not only do forests absorb CO2, but they also release it too. When we burn trees, cut them down, or they die and decay, the carbon escapes into the atmosphere.
Over the past four decades, forests have sequestered one-quarter of the CO2 emissions caused by humans. Scientists believe that they can do an even better job. The forests in the EU have an estimated 9.8 billion tons of carbon stored in their biomass. This means that the yearly carbon emissions of the EU are only about one-seventh of the amount already stored in the forests. Therefore, the forests in the EU are seen as a viable method of reducing global warming.
Scientific evidence shows that forests, both old-growth and managed, sequester up to 6 tons of carbon per hectare. Research theorizes that replanting trees on 2 billion hectares of degraded land can wipe out the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2.
Using trees to reduce global warming is not as straightforward as it may sound. This is because forests could also become carbon sources. Fires, pest outbreaks, and storms cause a massive return of carbon to the atmosphere.
For instance, Canada's managed forests have done a great job as carbon sinks until recently. In the past decades, however, the forests were carbon sources at some points. This happened because of tree insect outbreaks, forest fires, and land use.
Another study advises that the tropics are the best place to plant trees2. Trees grow faster in these areas and therefore absorb CO2 faster. The study suggests that planting trees in snowy areas could become problematic. This is because the trees can create a warming effect, which is the issue we are trying to avoid in the first place.
In temperate climates like much of Europe and some parts of the US, planting trees may have no significant effect on global warming. The study concludes that planting trees to solve global warming is not the worldwide solution presented by enthusiasts.
Professor Beverly Law of Oregon state university disagrees with the idea that more trees will do damage to the icy regions of the planet. In her opinion, the polar regions are warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the earth.
It is not correct to assume that the snow cover will remain intact without trees despite the earth’s rising temperature. It is most likely that the snow will melt in the coming decades anyway. In that situation, trees will not create an albedo effect.
Then again, Nadine Unger, a professor at the University of Exeter, UK, warns against tree planting. She states trees could form the greenhouse gas methane or ozone through a chemical reaction as the chief reason.
In her 2014 study, she calculates that deforestation from 1850 to the 2000s has created a cooling effect that slightly offsets the warming of greenhouse gas emissions. Her article “to save the planet, don't plant trees” was published in the New York Times. However, Professor Dominick Spracklen, who has studied the effects of aerosols, says such reactions are insignificant. And have a very minute impact on the climate of the earth.
Warming temperatures could also cause increased heterot
Username: Ajanta Published on 2024-12-11 17:15:33 ID NUMBER: 126583
There are different schools of thought on whether tree planting can reverse global warming. Some think it is just what we need to stop climate change once and for all, but others are not so optimistic. Before examining all the different opinions on the climate-saving power of trees, let’s see how carbon sequestration works.
The process of photosynthesis through which plants increase their biomass requires carbon dioxide, amongst other things. CO2 is responsible for 33% to 60% of plant growth. So for plants to survive, they need carbon dioxide, and there is an excess amount in the atmosphere already. So forests absorb and store carbon, and they also help our lands store it as well. In tropical forests, 50% of CO2 is stored in plant biomass, and the other half is in the soil.
Trees all over the world help to maintain the CO2 balance of the planet. Not only do forests absorb CO2, but they also release it too. When we burn trees, cut them down, or they die and decay, the carbon escapes into the atmosphere.
Over the past four decades, forests have sequestered one-quarter of the CO2 emissions caused by humans. Scientists believe that they can do an even better job. The forests in the EU have an estimated 9.8 billion tons of carbon stored in their biomass. This means that the yearly carbon emissions of the EU are only about one-seventh of the amount already stored in the forests. Therefore, the forests in the EU are seen as a viable method of reducing global warming.
Scientific evidence shows that forests, both old-growth and managed, sequester up to 6 tons of carbon per hectare. Research theorizes that replanting trees on 2 billion hectares of degraded land can wipe out the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2.
Using trees to reduce global warming is not as straightforward as it may sound. This is because forests could also become carbon sources. Fires, pest outbreaks, and storms cause a massive return of carbon to the atmosphere.
For instance, Canada's managed forests have done a great job as carbon sinks until recently. In the past decades, however, the forests were carbon sources at some points. This happened because of tree insect outbreaks, forest fires, and land use.
Another study advises that the tropics are the best place to plant trees2. Trees grow faster in these areas and therefore absorb CO2 faster. The study suggests that planting trees in snowy areas could become problematic. This is because the trees can create a warming effect, which is the issue we are trying to avoid in the first place.
In temperate climates like much of Europe and some parts of the US, planting trees may have no significant effect on global warming. The study concludes that planting trees to solve global warming is not the worldwide solution presented by enthusiasts.
Professor Beverly Law of Oregon state university disagrees with the idea that more trees will do damage to the icy regions of the planet. In her opinion, the polar regions are warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the earth.
It is not correct to assume that the snow cover will remain intact without trees despite the earth’s rising temperature. It is most likely that the snow will melt in the coming decades anyway. In that situation, trees will not create an albedo effect.
Then again, Nadine Unger, a professor at the University of Exeter, UK, warns against tree planting. She states trees could form the greenhouse gas methane or ozone through a chemical reaction as the chief reason.
In her 2014 study, she calculates that deforestation from 1850 to the 2000s has created a cooling effect that slightly offsets the warming of greenhouse gas emissions. Her article “to save the planet, don't plant trees” was published in the New York Times. However, Professor Dominick Spracklen, who has studied the effects of aerosols, says such reactions are insignificant. And have a very minute impact on the climate of the earth.
Warming temperatures could also cause increased heterot
Individuals, organizations, and governments are throwing their weight behind tree planting. There are efforts to protect existing forests and plant new ones.
The Paris Agreement has a significant number of nations coming together to combat climate change. Although President Donald Trump announced intentions to pull out of the agreement, he endorsed the 1 trillion trees program at the 2020 world economic forum.
The 1 trillion trees program is a multi-stakeholder effort by the world economic forum and its partners to grow, restore, and conserve 1 trillion trees. The United States representative, Bruce Westerman, also pushed the 1 trillion trees act. Although it garnered a lot of criticism, the president supports the 1 trillion trees act.
Nations under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe have seen an increase in how much CO2 trees have taken up. This is because the policies and laws concerning forests in the area ensure that new trees are planted to replace the ones cut down. The total forest cover of this region amounts to 1.9 billion hectares.
Research led by professor Tom Crowther found that there are 1.7 billion hectares of land that could support new trees. This area is 11% of all land and equal to the size of the United States and China put together. The researchers did not include urban areas or crop fields in their analysis. They estimate that this worldwide tree-planting scheme could remove 205 gigatons of human-caused carbon emissions in 50-100 years.
In professor Crowther's words
“... it is overwhelmingly more powerful than all of the other climate change solutions proposed”.
The researchers make it clear in an erratum later published that the statement in the earlier sentence does not mean to put planting trees above the reduction of fossil fuel emissions. The study gives a clear blueprint of how much more trees we can plant without disrupting agriculture4. Although these proposed new forests will cover areas worldwide, over 50% of the forest restoration land area are in the United States, Brazil, Canada, China, Russia, and Australia.
The Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management tried to examine if more trees are all that we need to stop global warming. They created two simulations; in the first, two situations are considered. The first is constant deforestation, no large-scale reforestation, and the Amazon sink becoming a carbon source. This situation showed atmospheric concentration exceeding 500ppm in 2050. In the second situation, they reduce deforestation and add extensive reforestation, but atmospheric concentration also exceeded 500 ppm in 2060.
In the second simulation, they considered again the same situations but with a vast reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. In the first weak forestry situation, atmospheric concentration peaked in 2070. In the strong forest situation, however, critical atmospheric concentration was never reached. Rather it began to reduce in 2050.
This led the ECCM to conclude that tree planting alone can not solve global warming. It needs to be combined with a reduction in fossil fuel emissions. As Greta Thunberg says
“planting trees is very good, of course, but it is nowhere near enough”.
In addition to protecting the planet, increased forestry can be beneficial to people. Planting fruit and rubber trees can provide income for them. Also, in countries with large wood industries like Nigeria, Ghana, and Cameroon, a reforestation campaign could reduce pressure on their natural forests. An abundance of trees is equal to an abundance of wood that we could use to replace fossil fuels in some processes.
There are different schools of thought on whether tree planting can reverse global warming. Some think it is just what we need to stop climate change once and for all, but others are not so optimistic. Before examining all the different opinions on the climate-saving power of trees, let’s see how carbon sequestration works.
The process of photosynthesis through which plants increase their biomass requires carbon dioxide, amongst other things. CO2 is responsible for 33% to 60% of plant growth. So for plants to survive, they need carbon dioxide, and there is an excess amount in the atmosphere already. So forests absorb and store carbon, and they also help our lands store it as well. In tropical forests, 50% of CO2 is stored in plant biomass, and the other half is in the soil.
Trees all over the world help to maintain the CO2 balance of the planet. Not only do forests absorb CO2, but they also release it too. When we burn trees, cut them down, or they die and decay, the carbon escapes into the atmosphere.
Over the past four decades, forests have sequestered one-quarter of the CO2 emissions caused by humans. Scientists believe that they can do an even better job. The forests in the EU have an estimated 9.8 billion tons of carbon stored in their biomass. This means that the yearly carbon emissions of the EU are only about one-seventh of the amount already stored in the forests. Therefore, the forests in the EU are seen as a viable method of reducing global warming.
Scientific evidence shows that forests, both old-growth and managed, sequester up to 6 tons of carbon per hectare. Research theorizes that replanting trees on 2 billion hectares of degraded land can wipe out the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2.
Using trees to reduce global warming is not as straightforward as it may sound. This is because forests could also become carbon sources. Fires, pest outbreaks, and storms cause a massive return of carbon to the atmosphere.
For instance, Canada's managed forests have done a great job as carbon sinks until recently. In the past decades, however, the forests were carbon sources at some points. This happened because of tree insect outbreaks, forest fires, and land use.
Another study advises that the tropics are the best place to plant trees2. Trees grow faster in these areas and therefore absorb CO2 faster. The study suggests that planting trees in snowy areas could become problematic. This is because the trees can create a warming effect, which is the issue we are trying to avoid in the first place.
In temperate climates like much of Europe and some parts of the US, planting trees may have no significant effect on global warming. The study concludes that planting trees to solve global warming is not the worldwide solution presented by enthusiasts.
Professor Beverly Law of Oregon state university disagrees with the idea that more trees will do damage to the icy regions of the planet. In her opinion, the polar regions are warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the earth.
It is not correct to assume that the snow cover will remain intact without trees despite the earth’s rising temperature. It is most likely that the snow will melt in the coming decades anyway. In that situation, trees will not create an albedo effect.
Then again, Nadine Unger, a professor at the University of Exeter, UK, warns against tree planting. She states trees could form the greenhouse gas methane or ozone through a chemical reaction as the chief reason.
In her 2014 study, she calculates that deforestation from 1850 to the 2000s has created a cooling effect that slightly offsets the warming of greenhouse gas emissions. Her article “to save the planet, don't plant trees” was published in the New York Times. However, Professor Dominick Spracklen, who has studied the effects of aerosols, says such reactions are insignificant. And have a very minute impact on the climate of the earth.
Warming temperatures could also cause increased heterot
The Milk Snake is a brightly colored species in various landscapes across North and South America. Its distinctive red, white, and black bands often lead to confusion with the venomous Coral Snakes.
Unlike Coral Snakes, Milk Snakes are harmless snakes. These nonvenomous snakes have red and black bands.
The Milk Snake is nocturnal, tending to hide in burrows and shadows during the day. It emerges at night to hunt suffocating prey like rodents, birds, reptiles, and eggs.
This diverse diet, combined with the Milk Snake's adeptness at hiding, allows it to thrive in various environments, including dense forests, open fields, and arid deserts.
Milk Snakes can also vibrate their rattles when threatened. However, we must remember that these snakes are generally peaceful and prefer avoiding humans.
There are different schools of thought on whether tree planting can reverse global warming. Some think it is just what we need to stop climate change once and for all, but others are not so optimistic. Before examining all the different opinions on the climate-saving power of trees, let’s see how carbon sequestration works.
The process of photosynthesis through which plants increase their biomass requires carbon dioxide, amongst other things. CO2 is responsible for 33% to 60% of plant growth. So for plants to survive, they need carbon dioxide, and there is an excess amount in the atmosphere already. So forests absorb and store carbon, and they also help our lands store it as well. In tropical forests, 50% of CO2 is stored in plant biomass, and the other half is in the soil.
Trees all over the world help to maintain the CO2 balance of the planet. Not only do forests absorb CO2, but they also release it too. When we burn trees, cut them down, or they die and decay, the carbon escapes into the atmosphere.
Over the past four decades, forests have sequestered one-quarter of the CO2 emissions caused by humans. Scientists believe that they can do an even better job. The forests in the EU have an estimated 9.8 billion tons of carbon stored in their biomass. This means that the yearly carbon emissions of the EU are only about one-seventh of the amount already stored in the forests. Therefore, the forests in the EU are seen as a viable method of reducing global warming.
Scientific evidence shows that forests, both old-growth and managed, sequester up to 6 tons of carbon per hectare. Research theorizes that replanting trees on 2 billion hectares of degraded land can wipe out the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2.
Using trees to reduce global warming is not as straightforward as it may sound. This is because forests could also become carbon sources. Fires, pest outbreaks, and storms cause a massive return of carbon to the atmosphere.
For instance, Canada's managed forests have done a great job as carbon sinks until recently. In the past decades, however, the forests were carbon sources at some points. This happened because of tree insect outbreaks, forest fires, and land use.
Another study advises that the tropics are the best place to plant trees2. Trees grow faster in these areas and therefore absorb CO2 faster. The study suggests that planting trees in snowy areas could become problematic. This is because the trees can create a warming effect, which is the issue we are trying to avoid in the first place.
In temperate climates like much of Europe and some parts of the US, planting trees may have no significant effect on global warming. The study concludes that planting trees to solve global warming is not the worldwide solution presented by enthusiasts.
Professor Beverly Law of Oregon state university disagrees with the idea that more trees will do damage to the icy regions of the planet. In her opinion, the polar regions are warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the earth.
It is not correct to assume that the snow cover will remain intact without trees despite the earth’s rising temperature. It is most likely that the snow will melt in the coming decades anyway. In that situation, trees will not create an albedo effect.
Then again, Nadine Unger, a professor at the University of Exeter, UK, warns against tree planting. She states trees could form the greenhouse gas methane or ozone through a chemical reaction as the chief reason.
In her 2014 study, she calculates that deforestation from 1850 to the 2000s has created a cooling effect that slightly offsets the warming of greenhouse gas emissions. Her article “to save the planet, don't plant trees” was published in the New York Times. However, Professor Dominick Spracklen, who has studied the effects of aerosols, says such reactions are insignificant. And have a very minute impact on the climate of the earth.
Warming temperatures could also cause increased heterot
This funky flower made our list because it’s so weird it doesn’t even have a nickname! The flowers look like horizontal, orange Lily of the Valley, but they are actually a member of the orchid family. They are part of the Pleurothallis genus to be exact, also called Bonnet Orchids for their tiny blooms’ resemblance to little baby bonnets. They can grow in a variety of different ways, as brush cover, as climbers, clumped and trailing, or as tall cane-like plants. Unlike regular orchids, these orchids prefer cooler temperatures and low moisture; they grow most comfortably at very high altitudes.
