Fully agree. There were too many talk radio shock jocks back then who said simplistic or trollish things about the EPA, pollution, and "tree-hugging" which allowed the left to stigmatize the right as being about dirty water, contaminated soil, and smog-filled air as long as it is profitable. Conservatism, from Teddy Roosevelt to Nixon, actually advanced our stewardship of the land and environment greatly. This was also done in a rational manner, driven by data and science, versus the rabid psychosis observed today by "climate change" hucksters.
Great history of all the helpful things that have been done.
I believe the federal government, in partnership with the states, can act for good when it wants to. Sadly, it rarely wants to. But at least we have the wins you mentioned.
Trees are the best place to sequester CO2. It’s so obvious. Planting more trees ? will remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Dems will fight this tooth and nail. Then they’ll come up with another reason to panic about something.
So it seems to me that at some point in the earth's history, pre vegetation, all of the CO2 that is currently stored in living and rotting vegetation and also in oil and natural gas was in the atmosphere. Yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect. How come? I'm not a climate scientist so I'd like someone to explain that to me. If we burn some of that oil and natural gas and put some of that CO2 back into the atmosphere why should we expect a runaway greenhouse effect now? In fact, I've never read about anyone being able to replicate a runaway greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting. What I do know is that trying to regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a dangerous "game". The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million (ppm). If the CO2 concentration drops below 185ppm all the plants die for lack of "food", and therefore the earth as we know it dies, so we had better be careful about reducing CO2. Tinkering with something we know so little about could end very badly. Am I wrong?
As a Louisiana native, that would be fuckin sweet if it did. I'm pretty disappointed that after the 9 brutal months of Summer this past year, this is the sorry excuse of a Winter we ended up with. I want my money back!
And if you cut down the trees when they are mature, and use them for timber, the CO2 remains out of the air indefinitely, because it's stored in the wood.
Some cities do this on a local level, to maintain a certain amount of tree cover. Groups like the Arbor Day Foundation go around city by city and help them develop such policies.
Tree farms obviously do this too. But I'd say we need more of them.
Fully agree. There were too many talk radio shock jocks back then who said simplistic or trollish things about the EPA, pollution, and "tree-hugging" which allowed the left to stigmatize the right as being about dirty water, contaminated soil, and smog-filled air as long as it is profitable. Conservatism, from Teddy Roosevelt to Nixon, actually advanced our stewardship of the land and environment greatly. This was also done in a rational manner, driven by data and science, versus the rabid psychosis observed today by "climate change" hucksters.
Great history of all the helpful things that have been done.
I believe the federal government, in partnership with the states, can act for good when it wants to. Sadly, it rarely wants to. But at least we have the wins you mentioned.
Trees are the best place to sequester CO2. It’s so obvious. Planting more trees ? will remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Dems will fight this tooth and nail. Then they’ll come up with another reason to panic about something.
Keep in mind you need to use the trees for timber to keep it out of the air permanently. Otherwise the CO2 goes back out when the dead wood decays.
So it seems to me that at some point in the earth's history, pre vegetation, all of the CO2 that is currently stored in living and rotting vegetation and also in oil and natural gas was in the atmosphere. Yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect. How come? I'm not a climate scientist so I'd like someone to explain that to me. If we burn some of that oil and natural gas and put some of that CO2 back into the atmosphere why should we expect a runaway greenhouse effect now? In fact, I've never read about anyone being able to replicate a runaway greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting. What I do know is that trying to regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a dangerous "game". The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million (ppm). If the CO2 concentration drops below 185ppm all the plants die for lack of "food", and therefore the earth as we know it dies, so we had better be careful about reducing CO2. Tinkering with something we know so little about could end very badly. Am I wrong?
In short, the lumber industry.
True, but if you use the wood for timber, it keeps the CO2 out of the air indefinitely.
I support planting a trillion trees that can be used for timber in 30 to 50 years.
All of the western fire areas need to have new trees that are less combustible.
As a Louisiana native, that would be fuckin sweet if it did. I'm pretty disappointed that after the 9 brutal months of Summer this past year, this is the sorry excuse of a Winter we ended up with. I want my money back!
Not sure. Probably not in the immediate term, but these are more long term projects.
And if you cut down the trees when they are mature, and use them for timber, the CO2 remains out of the air indefinitely, because it's stored in the wood.
Young, growing trees produce the most 02. It should be mandatoey that all trees cut down be replaced - somewhere - by a new tree.
Some cities do this on a local level, to maintain a certain amount of tree cover. Groups like the Arbor Day Foundation go around city by city and help them develop such policies.
Tree farms obviously do this too. But I'd say we need more of them.
CO2 Is plant food.
I'm pretty sure the ocean takes out much more than the trees.
Grow algae instead. Much better for co2 absorption....