The amount of forestation in the USA has been increasing since 1910, when the peak of deforestation occurred in this country. That's over a century now of reforestation within this country. In the rural county I live in now, most of the mountains were deforested in the 1800s to produce charcoal to operate crude cold-blast iron furnaces to process iron ore in-situ because roads and rail didn't exist to transport the ore out. Now, these mountains are are fully forested again, and while they can't be consid
Yeah, I'm sure ecologists are doing gain-of-function research all the time.
You morons just can't miss an opportunity to redirect the topic so you can demonstrate how well you've been brainwashed into spouting off all the talking points.
The US Department of Defense has been doing more work on protecting the environment than the Department of Energy. A big hurdle is Democrats in Congress. The US Navy wants nuclear powered frigates and cruisers. The Coast Guard wants nuclear powered ice breakers. The USAF, USSF, USMC, and US Army want nuclear powered fuel synthesis at sea and on shore. They what solar powered tents so they have more power without need for noisy generators that give away their position. The want small nuclear reactor th
Over the long term, sure. But a tree can sequester atmospheric carbon for centuries, which is roughly the same timescale as the half-life of carbon in the atmosphere. Putting carbon into trees may be only buying time, but if you buy enough time that has a number of worthwhile effects, especially if you're reducing emissions at the same time. The real problem is that tree planting programs are often badly designed. The trees die, which is worse than useless because you're emitting carbon to plant them.
Carbon? How many times to we have to go over this? unless you sequester the dead trees away and seal them off, trees are at best, carbon neutral.
No.
A tree in a steady state forest is carbon neutral. But the scientists here are proposing planting forests not individual trees. If you plant a whole new forest it sucks up a load of carbon and then stores it in trees and then the soil: trees die and become part of the soil and while eventually they break down it's slow and good soil has a huge amount of organic
The amount of forestation in the USA has been increasing since 1910, when the peak of deforestation occurred in this country. That's over a century now of reforestation within this country. In the rural county I live in now, most of the mountains were deforested in the 1800s to produce charcoal to operate crude cold-blast iron furnaces to process iron ore in-situ because roads and rail didn't exist to transport the ore out. Now, these mountains are are fully forested again, and while they can't be consid
Yeah, I'm sure ecologists are doing gain-of-function research all the time.
You morons just can't miss an opportunity to redirect the topic so you can demonstrate how well you've been brainwashed into spouting off all the talking points.
The US Department of Defense has been doing more work on protecting the environment than the Department of Energy. A big hurdle is Democrats in Congress. The US Navy wants nuclear powered frigates and cruisers. The Coast Guard wants nuclear powered ice breakers. The USAF, USSF, USMC, and US Army want nuclear powered fuel synthesis at sea and on shore. They what solar powered tents so they have more power without need for noisy generators that give away their position. The want small nuclear reactor th
trees are at best, carbon neutral.
Over the long term, sure. But a tree can sequester atmospheric carbon for centuries, which is roughly the same timescale as the half-life of carbon in the atmosphere. Putting carbon into trees may be only buying time, but if you buy enough time that has a number of worthwhile effects, especially if you're reducing emissions at the same time. The real problem is that tree planting programs are often badly designed. The trees die, which is worse than useless because you're emitting carbon to plant them.
Carbon? How many times to we have to go over this? unless you sequester the dead trees away and seal them off, trees are at best, carbon neutral.
No.
A tree in a steady state forest is carbon neutral. But the scientists here are proposing planting forests not individual trees. If you plant a whole new forest it sucks up a load of carbon and then stores it in trees and then the soil: trees die and become part of the soil and while eventually they break down it's slow and good soil has a huge amount of organic