> Surely, plantations can absorbe some CO2 (or
>carbon generally). But plantations should be established over enormous areas
>to have some important effect. If I know the World right, such plantation
>would be established in poor countries where land prices are low, thus
>probably displacing poor farmers. And what will happen when the planted
>trees are not growing anymore? Or if the trees are cut and maybe even
>burned? The plantation strategy only pushes the problems some few years
>ahead.
>Thor Hjarsen
The united states has many areas that are suitable for wood plantations. I
think you are correct that controling emissions is much more effective, but
why not do BOTH.
Also, i think much of the land that is good for CO2 storing plantations
would not be good for agriculture. The most benefit would be from barren
land that is turned into plantations. Maybe these could be
interplantations, with many species, some giving food for people and
animals. I would like to see more research on CO2 storage of different
types of forest.
Research shows a direct correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and
earth's temp. We are returning the mix to where it was in the days of the
dinosaurs. We are going to have a pan-tropical climate again on this
planet, the only question is how fast we get there. Think of all this
means about earth's forests!!!!!!! We will have to help ecosystems move
much faster than they could on their own. In the days of the dinosaurs
many areas that are desert now were heavily forested.
I think we are going to need both reforestation and slowing emissions.
will bason
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0