CO2 Absorption by Trees

The "third world" is too busy cutting trees down to create farmland. Plant trees? Europe currently pays them to cut them down slower (see Kyoto Agreement-Carbon Credits). I'd be interested to know what trees absorb CO2 best, does anyone know?

I think the tree planting idea is great but passing the responsibility to what you call the "third world" is not that great. Another thing is that cutting trees down for farmland may not be so good but there are many people that this is their only option and if not done there is no food for them, so passing the responsibility of the "ecological work" to these people does not sound very fair to me. They are busy planting their lunch. The way things work in other countries like Brazil is not exactly how they work where ever you guys live.

I'd be interested to know what trees absorb CO2 best, does anyone know?

No offense but each question kind of misses the mark (entirely), namely in that there are multiple answers, some contradictory, some not, to each. A few examples . . .

Does anyone know?

• No one knows.
• Most everyone knows.

What trees absorb [convert] CO₂ best?

• All trees in the locale and clime to which they are adapted.
• No (one) trees [tree].
• Trees that receive the most insolation.
• Trees with leaves that receive the most insolation.
• Trees that keep their leaves longest.
• Trees higher in a canopy.
• More mature trees.
• Trees in wetter areas.
• Faster growing trees.
• Longer-lived trees.
• Trees in daylight.
• Successon trees.
• Climax trees.
• Trees that shade the ground . . . those that don't.
• Trees adapted to saltwater.
• Those adapted to fresh water.
• Tree species adapted to tropics . . . scrub land, desert, savanna, temperate . . .etc.
• And so on.
• And so forth.

That there is no answer to your question—that is to say, that photosynthesis does not "come in" varieties—is probably a good thing; imagine the devastation that could be wrought by humankind were it possible to select against some forms of natural, plant CO₂ conversion in preference for others!

Contrary to the seeming common wisdom of this forum, my guess would be that the "best" trees would be those self-sustainable species which are native to a region.

For what it's worth: As to the "third world" issue I cannot accept fully the "slash-and-burn or starve" defense; certainly unenlightened exploitation has been a significant contributor to destruction of rain forests. Not only exploitation of commodities, but also over exploitation for food to support—in addition to commercial export—the ill-placed/displaced "worker" populations which natural forests (and poor forest soil fertility) simply cannot support. A significant degree of intervention seems eminently justified . . . on the grounds of, some starve (or move back) now or many starve later.

Dear Mr.Roger Pink,

The NEEM TREE (in India) is considered to be one of the HIGHEST OXYGEN LIBERATING TREES, which has a life span of about 150 years - if branches etc. are not cut/trimmed. All the parts of the tree - be it leaf, flower, fruit,root, bark - has a VERY HIGH MEDICINAL VALUE.

DHAYANANHDAN.S

Thanks for that, do you think if the incentive was high enough they would stop??

No, I think it's impractical, but that's just my opinion. I believe the solution is Fusion power, which could provide a lot of energy for cheap, with no pollution, so we'd stop pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere. Still, you're right that we will need a method to remove the CO₂ from the atmosphere. Interestingly, plants should grow "denser" in an environment of increasing temperatures and increasing CO_2.

What does that mean, grow denser? I don't quite follow the scenario you suggested . . . about increasing temps and CO_2. Seems you might have overlooked water.

What incentives do you suggest ?

Yes, we can grow trees for you at only US$100 each tree. You can order as many trees you want. I have land for it and if funds are there then I can make it all green in an year. Do you think you can do that or get funds from any source? If yes then we have a deal else what is that you want to say here.

Cute. You provide the financing and we've got a deal.

I am very interested in buy a tree, but I have some questions.

1. Are there any standards that outline how many carbon credits I am allowed to claim? Is this a part of the Kyoto standards or just a scientific calcluation.

2. What is the best tree to plant and needle bearing tree or a leaf bearing tree that looses it's leaves and goes dormate for 6 months a year?

3.

Dear Dallasrs

Indian Amla or Gooseberry is ideal plantation for about 50-100 years. Leaves remain for nearly 9-10 months in a year. Tree is about 8m to 18m tall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_gooseberry

http://horticulture.kar.nic.in/APMAC_website_files/Amla2.htm

This gives fruit so people can work for return of fruit to take care of the trees.

Land I own can have 10,000 such trees. I can easily get more land from Government for this purpose.

If you ask us to place 1000 numbers of trees then it may be worth visiting India after 4 years of plantation to see fruit bearing trees and its green look. It will also improve quality of life of 10 families of poor Indians by giving them sustainable living.

Write to me if you are seriously interested. It is my private land and my own idea and not connected with any India Government or International Agency for any purpose. I feel great doing so and if you feel it that way then I can do it for your support. It is time to dig pits now for plantation in next July-August. About 1m deep and 1m wide pits to be dig out in land. On plantation these will be filled with compost bio fertilizer and soil and trees will be planted. Agriculture University will provide me seed plants.

Picture cursey http://www.tropicalfruitandveg.co.uk/images/amla.jpg

Six acres of trees growing equal one acre of corn growing in the conversion of sunlight, soil, and rainwater to a net positive CO2 converstion to oxygen by corn stalks and 34% hydrogen encapsulated and self contained safely in whole kernel shelled corn. DOE is researching safe transportable economical sources for hydrogen - the near perfect fuel DOE proclaims.

No heating/cooking fuel cost less than local grown whole kernel shelled corn. Corn energy reduces global warming, the refuse feeds cattle providing food vs famine for local communities. No energy is wasted transporting local renewable corn across the globe to market.

The thrid world calls corn maize and maize grain. No known plant is more energy efficient than corn. In fact, recent testing show that as the ambient oxygen content decreases, corn growth increases to stabilize the oxygen content in the atmosphere and stabalize the cost of corn.

Search TennesseeCornStoves for complete information about corn energy.

Solar energy to Hydrogen conversion may be great idea.

However, use of Hydrogen has a serious problem as it also generates Hydrazine H2N2 when comes in contact with Nitrogen. This is a cancer activating agent known for serious problem. This may cause wide spread cancer even in children as they inhale this. Its density going to be high at road side where people actually live. I am sure it will be banned in long run.

Hydrazine already is a serious problem in plants where Hydrogen is stored or used. NASA knows it better as they use use amount of it in their space mission. It may perhaps replace Petrolium fuel in aircrafts and will become a serious problem as they will consume a lot of it.

CO2 alone is not a problem. CO2 is a food for plants and for us again as we all are Hydrocarbons, water and minerals.

Good question. Also good answer.

Hydrazine H2N2 is neither generated by corn growing nor in corn combustion. Corn Combustion generated effluents of Co2 and Co are 100 times less than for good clean natural gas combustion with a net positive conversion considering the corn growing converts a net positive amount of oxygen. Corn conversion of CO2 to oxygen increases as the ambient % CO2 increases where the corn plant resides.

Great comment. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. You may be forgetting about the required inputs however. I live in the middle of Central Illinois corn country. I burn corn for heat, in a corn stove. Due to corn prices doubling, I am now burning wood, along with corn, in the stove. The wood grows on my lots, so is free.

I have heard that switchgrass, miscanthus, or mixed tall grasses are more efficient, and require little or no inputs. Would appreciate your comments. Also, do you know if "no till" is catching on, and if it would make the difference in corn inputs? Locally some farmers get septic plant refuse spread on them. I wonder about the build up of toxins however. I believe grasses, would grow on a lot of land that would not be suitable for corn, thus opening up a lot more potential agriculture. The roots are much deeper for arid land. They can even grow tules on saline land with saline water.

Would appreciate any more web site reccomendations.

All the best,

Ron Wagner

Ron, can you elaborate more completely how technically you feed wood into a corn stove. Wood pellets work fine in a corn stove. How do you reduce the size of wood logs to the size of a pellet?

Using public waste for fertilizer is not recommended for corn or farm products. The opportunity to pollute top soil with multiple contaminants can render private land a total disaster and subject to EPA clean up rules.

Local energy supplies of biomass material for energy production is the low cost energy alternative. Corn is local to many locations in the US and Canada. Corn is not the local biomass of choice for tropical climates. Tropical biomass is not the recommend local crop of choice in corn country. Switch grass, for example, is a governmental funded diversional tactic to dilute the energy solution. Do not contaminate good corn ground with switch grass. Permanent land destruction will result. Switchgrass stubs, for example, will puncture farm tractor tires. Root depth is measured in feet or meters rather than inches. Single switch grass cultivars are permanent rather than annual. There is no crop rotation with switch grass. Once switching your grass to switch grass one can never switch your grass back.

The requested and recommended cornstove websites include www.msnusers.com/cornstoves, www.msnusers.com/amaizablaze, www.msnusers.com/tennesseecornstoves, www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves, www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace, www.cornstoves.info, www.amaizablaze.com, www.cornstoves.com

A corn stove will burn any biomass material that can be fed with the auger. Ability to convert biomass materials to pellet size is a goal to achieve. All corn stove owners eagerly await any and all technical or financial recommendations to convert biomass material to pellet size. Pulverizers, grinders, shavers, sawdust, roadside wood are examples that are not fully desireable because of inconsistent size. A consistent pellet size is the desireable biomass product size for combustion in a corn stove. Any help, comments, ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Why third world?

Everyone lives in the first world and that world is their first perspective.

Everyone speaks at least one language and that language is their perspective and perrogrative.

In one language Miaze is a grain crop that includes corn amoungst other crops

In another language corn is a grain crop that includes maize amoungst other crops.

"Third world" is in reply to a previous comment reference to "third world". Perhaps that commentator can define what language he speaks and how the term is defined from that perspective which is his perrogrative.

Let me respond to your idea about paying the "third world" to grow trees. The first question has to be: Where would they grow them? Next: How long would we pay them...if they could do so? After that: Who would own the trees, or have control of them? Finally: how is the return on such an expenditure ever to be recouped, or amortized?

The answer must begin with the observation that your proposal (if I may call it that) is founded on a basic misconception--a fallacy if you will--that the tree stands that would be "planted" (not to mention, husbanded to maturity as part of the "growing" commitment) would look something like the broadleaf and needleleaf forests that we are most accustomed to seeing in the temperate climate zones--mostly in the USA and Canada. However, most of those we would call "third world-ers" exist in tropical settings. There the forests are nothing like those which you envision we would pay to have planted. First, those forests, in spite of infertile soils, are the most stable owing to the fact they they have evolved and adapted over millions of years--they are, in fact, Earth's most primordial--and irreplacable--forests. What this means, essentially, is that unlike temperate forests, once they are removed by slash and burn for transitory agricultural use of the land, they cannot be easily restored, if at all. Whereas one can restore a temperate tree stand, it is next to impossible to replant a tropical tree stand--all the elements are removed for a tropical stand to grow and be established once the trees have been removed to begin with. And, even if it were possible to "cultivate" a mixed forest with hundreds of different species of plants (without which the forest could not be established), the time that would be required to do so would amount to hundreds of years--albeit that this would be small in comparison with the uncountable thousands of years it took in the first place for nature to establish the forests that would be "regrown." Finally, the questions arises as to what commercial benefit might be derivable from those trees--how might they eventually repay the cost of the "third world" tropical forest replanting programs? To answer that, first consider the question of why it is that tropical forest trees are not exploited commercially, rather than being slashed and burned (in addition to being used for decentralized energy/heat generation), during deforestation to make space for crop culturing. The answer is: that (1) trees in tropical forests typically have little or no commercial wood product value since, unlike temperate trees (in the first world) they are unsuited for use as timber; (2) those trees that do have commercial viability do not grow in huge stands (close together as in temperate forests) but, rather, in widely dispersed isolation within the forests--so selectively harvesting those trees--trees which will take hundreds of years to replace--or trees that will be lost permanently if harvested--would become a very difficult and expensive undertaking, one which would most likely only lead to further degradation of the tropical forest ecosystem, and even fewer trees, and greater threat to the rivers on which tropical forsests depend. So, in a nut shell, paying the third world to "grow trees" would benefit neither donor nor recipient because it could not result in many, if any, trees being actually grown. The only "worlds" for which it would be possible to pay for tree growing is the first world--which we already pay to grow trees. So the best way in which any kind of subsidy program would work would be one in which "we" pay the third world (even more) not to destroy tropical forests! The answers to your other questions follow a similar line of reasoning, beginning with pointing out misconceptions inherent in the questions themselves.

There are no "best trees" to absorb CO2...except trees that are healthy and living. Different photosynthesizing plants do not have different photosynthetic processes. The better question would pertain to land use: How do we increase the amount of land on which more plants (forests included) would grow and "absorb" CO2...without overly increasing CO2 production through decomposition and other processes, both metabolic and man-made. First on that list would have to be halting the spread of inapproriate crop culturing practices in the tropical forests--because the world already depends, far and away above any other resource, upon those forests for CO2 absorption. In temperate regions, especially the US, moderating the the ongoing conversion of floral habitat (and agricultural land) to make living space for human populations (and their infrastructures) would be an obvious way to preserve, or make more, space for CO2 absorbtion.

Your idea about Best tree, seems to indicate that you are thinking about finding, breeding, or "engineering" a super-CO2-consuming tree. This is probably not a viable idea. After all, how would you culture or design any plant to "absorb" more CO2 than it can possibly use. Unlike an animal--which can be stressed or exercised to cause it to use more O2, while it exhales more CO2--stressing a plant such as a tree only causes it to "shut down" and use less CO2, and "exhale" less O2. Or you might say that, since the tree would utilize more CO2 during rapid growth, we might do something to promote tree growth. But, apart from planting more trees than are needed for replacement, this would lead to the absurd proposition of cutting down trees (with full, CO2 absorbing foliage) in order to promote more rapid growth of younger trees (with far less CO2-absorbing foliage). (Ironically, in this wise, it can be seen that there is some wisdom in harvesting (and replacing) mature, subtropical and temperate (and temperate rainforest) trees--trees which otherwise fall and add to CO2 during decomposition.)

Investment in water supplies to make tree planting work seems like putting the cart before the horse. Investing in tree planting (and forest health) to preserve water supplies is a much more viable (and necessary) option. And consider: in places in the US where water is scarce, one of the worst impacts on water supplies comes from using it to water trees, non-indigenous plants, and grass. With the third world, the same principal applies: that health and vitality of the rivers--in particular the Amazon--depends heavily on investments in preservation of the forests.

Hi Friends,

We have only one world so far, called earth. What is first, second and third? Here people are either rich or poor. Some have resource some have nothing. That is all.

Nothing is really permanent here except for earth itself. Whatever, we do here, we do for our own living in shorter spans. For earth few hundred years are very small in time.

If you have money, and you wish to do something you do it anywhere, that it will make an impact. India and China are one third of world people. Perhaps soon they may become half of the world people. That is good place to get things done.

You have good ground for experimental work. These people can plant trees and can care for trees. Who else will do it otherwise. Most of the Alaska and Malaysian trees are cut for American Newspapers and toilet papers. People here in Indiua use reprocessed paper that you through in the dust bin.

Amount of fuel these people use is 1/1000000 factor of what you all use. These people are nowhere near your energy consumption.

CO2 is all due to excessive use of fuel and if there are people to help the world with small funding so what is the problem?

Acually no one is asking for funds? Some time great rich people offer it thinking that they are doing some good thing and for a good purpose and they know it very well, exactly what they want. Others are just helping that happen so they accept the offer and do it. So, what is the problem? The offer was a problem or its acceptance was a problem or some people always are in problem. They see problem, problem and then problem. What is wrong?

If we can solve the world problem and we all want it, then let us join hands. Why any one wants to own the earth. Are you not satisfied with what you own now? If you own more then what else will do other than burn more and get more CO2. People in India worship trees. Government does not allow to cut trees. People will go to jail if they cut any green tree. Only evil man here harms the forrest and no goodman ever dares to cut tree. Don't you think that is good? I have seen in some other countries also this happens that people worship trees but there is no law against cutting trees. We have such law.

Friends, las week children here planted few hundreds of trees, and they will water these for years just to see them grow. We want to grow millions of these trees and look for funds if you wish to offer. We will be doing it any way for the good cause so you can join hands if you wish. If you don't then that is all right with us.

There is a fair bit to know about tropical rainforests that can only be learned from visiting them or living amongst them.

Firstly rainforest trees are quite closely spaced, savannah is the widely spaced forest. Secondly most of the world's most valuable timber comes from Tropical Rainforest. Timbers such as Mahogany, Red cedar, White Cedar, North Queensland Maple, Black Bean, Sassafras, North Qld Walnut all have values above $3000 per cubic metre. The value of the trees to the money men at all levels is not realised until the tree is felled. Tropical rainforests can and have been sustainably harvested, it was done successfully in Queensland Australia until the Labor Government closed the industry to chase the "green vote". The forestry resource was so well managed it has been classified "Pristine World Heritage".

Forestry managed correctly stores carbon by interrupting the decay cycle, clearfelling releases it. Indonesia and Malaysia sponsor clearfelling and some of the fallen timber is actually processed.

Tropical Rainforestry management requires a "treemark" management system where only trees ready to be culled are felled, the regeneration is exceedingly swift, so much so that the logging roads in the Atherton Tableland area have disappeared since the cessation of logging. The timbers yielded are of high value and are quite profitable despite the comparatively high labour content used in their harvest.

As Cowanon says, clear the lot and reastablishment can be difficult. On the other hand reaforestation on the Atherton Tableland and at Eungella have shown the benefits of using native species. In one case native species were planted as a windbreak for exotics and outperformed the exotics.

Native species once again can be extremely useful because of their adaptation to the local environment. Land that has been cleared for grazing must continually be recleared especially in Savannah areas. The so called woody weeds are native trees trying to recolonise their former range.

Trees such as Brigalow will grow quickly where most crops fail, what is required is a harvesting regime to process the biomass. So called first world farmers can probably contribute more than any aid programme, as Cornstoves will attest growing fuel makes good sense especially from an employment and national security standpoint.

Emjay,

A most interesting and informative posting. Thanks.

Water is automatically returned to earth through the transpiration cycle. Cultivating grasses in arid areas attracts rain. Tall grasses can reach water in arid, land, and transform wasteland to productive land. Even salt water can be used to grow many plants and grasses, such as tules.

I would love to see the Amazon and rainforests around the world saved as they are, and used for ecotourism. The countries involved will do what we have done in the USA. Exploit most of the land, and save some for wilderness and recreation. Hopefully they will do an better job, than we have.

Hopefully mankind can turn the agricultural land into a mixed use, and beautiful environment, rather than a stark monoculture. We could certainly use some aesthetic plantings, and recreational access here in central Illinois.

Ron Wagner

I would like to congratulate you on your well informed and thoughtful response to this thread, and point out a potential short term solution on this issue - you may have seen my other postings on this thread.

One way to utilise the land denuded of tropical and sub-tropical forests is to cultivate industrial hemp. As the short growth biomass is removed annually or bi-annually, carbon embodied can be used to replace depleted forestry resources for food, fuel and shelter. This can help prevent further deforestation, and even when used for fuel, represents a sustainble carbon cycle which at least minimises long term impacts.

The nutritional return is very high as both the seed and leaf are 'super foods,' and the large quantity of biomass is very versatile and can be seen as long term carbon storage when used for construction etc.

In the meantime, hemp cultivation improves soil in various ways, including binding to prevent soil erosion, improving structure and increasing organic matter. Hemp uses relatively little water and needs no chemical inputs apart from some fertiliser which can be derived from natural sources like urine (from people or animals) and dung etc.

In other words, hemp will bio-remediate soil, provide nutrition and absorb carbon very efficiently while replacing the resources typically derived from forestry. There are already examples of rejuvenating forests gradually from remaining areas by hemp bio-remediation. Food crops grown in a crop rotation cycles including hemp cultivation show yield increases of up to 40%!

As such, it is a far more viable route to addressing a whole gamut of issues including carbon absorption, reforestation, soil health, agro-chemical pollution, nutrition and even revenue models for subsistence communities, meaning there is no need to pay them, only set them up (teach a man to fish...).

The one downside is the destruction of many varieties of hemp suited to tropical climates, caused by the interference of the World Bank and the DEA. Fortunately, a large gene pool has been preserved by seed banks since antiquity, and cultivating traits in hemp is relatively fast compared with other plants.

Does any of this resonate with you at all?

Carlos,

Thank you and, yes, I have viewed your posts. Without belaboring all of the pros and cons (none of which I find implausible), you seem to be suggesting that cannabis could provide a suitable ultimate replacement for climax plants that are lost? Would not the incentives you mention for hemp also lead to further decimation of climax forests? Whether it be by agribusiness and industrial concerns? Or by "wild catters mining" for private fortunes?

CA

HI. I think use of the word cannabis is misleading, as industrial hemp is non-narcotic and has been suppressed by association with cannabis, so the word is hemp - for clarity.

I did say a short term solution, perhaps you did not read my posting thoroughly. Hemp is a fantastic short term solution because it has so many across the board solutions including helping to preserve remaining forestry by replacing the resources normally derived unsustainably from them, providing nature's most complete single source of nutrition in a storable form, soil benefits, and raw materials for literally tens of thousands of applications.

The incentives are most attractive to those who lack resources due to denuded landscapes and impoverished, decaying soil. I hardly think the boys down at corporate central are going to go in killing more trees and eco-systems to plant hemp! They are the guys whose interests were threatened and thus got it banned in the first place!

Hemp is so prolific that a relatively small area of land can sustainably support a relatively large community, compared with other crops, and it allows other crops to be used as well because it needs only 3 to 4 months to mature. So the point here is that hemp prevents the need to consume madly, as it can provide a great percentage of our material needs while benefitting the environments it grows in.

There is already more than enough agricultural or denuded land available to cultivate sufficient quantities of hemp and complementary crops, and the bio-remediation of land is a major step in the re-forestaion process.

Combined with other simple tools like rockdusting for soil remineralisation (which incidentally boosts soil health and captures and stores carbon long term), hemp represents a pathway to sustainability for hundreds of thousands of communities in developing countries - otherwise they will develop into nightmare, fiendish, all consuming ghouls like us!

So, I promote hemp as a tool for prevention and partial cure. A way to save some of the remaining forestry, to buy time while we work out how to repair eco-systems as best we can, and a way for subsistence communities to meet their needs without eating everything in site like a plague of locusts.

I also promote hemp as a symbiotic partner for a sustainable humanity, working in partnership with communities and not run by mega-corporations who have absolutely no interest in the welfare of any communities except their own and their customers.

Did I mention that hemp is also used to clean up brownfield sites, mopping up heavy metals and toxins which can then be disposed of or recycled? It has even been used in Cherbobyl to recover radioactiove materials embedded in soils.

Unfortunately, alot of forest and eco-systems are already gone, but nature has given us an amazing tool which was used worldwide for millenia (during which time we lived sustainably), that we can now apply as a tournequet to stem the loss of 'lifeblood,' our precious global eco-system/environment.

Industrial hemp is a kind of 'get out of jail free' card, well 'get out of jail still alive' might be more accurate...

PS, if you doubt the conspiracy, wikipedia has a little on it.

Have you checked out kenaf? I am doing some extensive reserach as kenaf fir use as an animal feed. Iam growing it in Florida. Kenaf sequesters about 10 tons of CO2 in one growing season. I also use it as an aggregate to make building components. see www.environmentalhouse.com

Couple of things, corn is not the answer. Nearly all plant carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere. Therefore, the faster a plant grows, the faster it must uptake carbon. However, when plant tissue decays or burns, it releases the sequestered carbon back as carbon dioxide. Most of the carbon mass of corn would be returned to the atmosphere annually, as it is a seasonal crop. Tree sequester the carbon for the life of the tree, maybe 200 years. (I guess you could bury, plant residue in very deep mine shafts, excluded from atmosphere and try to generate coal in a few million years.) One option to those countries the clear cut and convert land to grazing land for cattle, is to grow a viable tree crop and subsidize the crop production (e.g. Bananas, Coconuts, Brazil Nuts, Apples, etc..). All plant solutions for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is short term, sequestering carbon for upto a few hundred years for very long growing trees. Sequestering the carbon in the form of carbonates and deep injection to form limestone and/or dolostone (eventually) might be a longer solution, terms of a few million years.

Elements like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen are not hazardous, are natural and essential to human and earth and present no harm to either.

Safe, harmless, and helpful is the conversion of chemicals to elements. Corn growing converts the global warming carbon dioxide to oxygen.

The growth rate of a plant has nothing to do with the decay rate of the refuse. Concrete is made from ash. Fly ash is an airborne effluent of coal combustion collected by mechanical means. Flyash, the second most abundant material, is stored and measured in miles, not meters. The answer to all concerns or any concern is not corn without first defining the question.

Of note the conversion of lime into concrete (along with other minerals) releases all the carbon dioxide stored in the lime. So concrete is not a solution prefereable to wood for construction. Cut a tree down, you have remove a short term carbon store mechanism, build in concrete and you remove a multimillion year carbon storage mechanism. Also the wood construction does not release the carbon as concrete does. Steel uses huge quantities of coal, another multimillion year carbon storage mechanism. Plastics use oil , another multimillion year stoarge mechanism.

Sounds very good analogy. Good thinking.

Stop cutting trees world over. Malaysia will not listen as they make money out of that and they want to live good life now and ...............

I like the idea. Plant trees if you can or fund planting of trees if you like trees.

I can put a name plate icon on each tree to say you have funded it. Just for US$1000 per tree Banyan tree. I can plant it and water it for 5 years and then it will stay on its own. You can't do that yourself so get it done through me. I am ready to do that. Come on freinds, have your name on earth written for thousand years as Banyan Tree lives more than that. It is worshipped in India and no one dares to cut it. It can occupy one acre land and gorws so large. There is one such tree in IIT Chennai which is the oldest and largest. People from USA came to India to put back when it was pulled off ground under very heavy cyclonic winds. Normaly it can take care of itself. The Adyar Banyan tree in IIT, Chennai, with its roots spreading over 40000-sq-ft is no small tree. You can have one like that funded by you in long run for US$1000 only. Even if I find one man to fund one tree I will consider CO2 talk useful else it is just talk-talk and talk.

What you seen in the picture as forest is just one Banyan tree. Look at the men and the tree. If you fund one we can plant one for you to be history for 1000 years.

Very beautiful. The largest living organism in the world though is an aspen (poplar) forest in Colorado. Poplars also spread by their roots, and can take over large areas. Hybrid poplars are very fast growing, and commonly used for a fast timber lot and firewood. They will replenish themselves with no added work. Trees can be trimmed rather than cut to the ground, this allows for quick biomass or firewood use, and quick regrowth. I don't think that any one species process much more C02 into 02 than any other species.

In regards to the planting of trees, Take a look at Israel. They started years ago planting trees in the desert and the rainfall has increased in Israel from about 10 inches a year to last year almost 50 inches. The rain fall has been slowly moving out following the tree lines. They pay people who would otherwise not be working to plant trees. Of course you still have the problem of the ignorant terrorists burning the trees down to punish the Israelis! You guys may want to take a look at CO2science.com. The planting of trees is a negligable cost compared to the benefits long term. Remember that the US lost 3.5 billion chestnut trees in just 15 years due to the blight. what impact did that have on the world? Roy Blizzard, alphaterraengineering.com

Trees, grasses, corn, all use water and return it to nature. They attract rain as you say. The more plant growth the better for the planet.

Now if we can just split the carbon from the CO2 and use the remaining O2 to burn it and produce electricity, or heat as needed, we will have it made. Also the cellulose can be made into ethanol for liquid fuel.

Your chemistry looks way off.

Planting the trees make the roots to hold on soil and stops soil errosion. It also improves soil as leaves fall and form humas and compost. Lots of creatures then survive under the tree, over the tree and lots of new vegetative growth takes place that live together and forms a forest. It is a system that has a balace of its own. All you need men on earth to wipe out all that. If there are no men then earth can run systematically by itself. We say we have brain but looks to me many have only negative side of it. In order to make the earth clean we clean everything else and form toxic waste.

Is any one buying the idea of tree? Looks no one actually wants. If you spend money on trees then you will not have it to burn fuel. It is doubly better to lose the money for a tree. Plant a tree or get it planted by forwarding money to someone who may do it.

I profess to be an expert in nothing, but I have concerns about the state of the planet. I have a 140,000 tree eucalyptus plantation covering 250acres planted primarily as a commercial source of timber with CO2 absorption a benifit. I have also spent years in a wide variety of forest environments observing their lifecycles. So I want to chuck in my 2 bobs worth (sorry Australian for having my say).

Firstly to actually try to answer your Question. The best trees are the ones that produces the highest wood by weight / annum in the area you intend to grow, look around locally for the fastest growing local species with commercial benifits if there isn't one I can recommend Eucalyptus as there is a variety that'll grow almost anywhere. Do a soil and climate analysis to determine a list of compatible trees and do a simple test. Plant, water once comeback in a month or two and analysis the results and compare to the table below.

Dead - Bad not suited

Alive and growning well - suitable

I keep hearing people talking forest this forest that, and please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me when a tree grows in a mature forest it grows merrily absorbing CO2 on the way until it reaches maturity when growth and CO2 absorption slow and this is offset by the starting of disease, termites, rot and dropping of folige and branches. Eventually the tree dies. If we're lucky the tree falls in a swamp and turns into coal or oil after a couple of million years. More likely it'll rot on the forest floor slowly releasing all that stored cabon back into the atmosphere. So when the forest reaches maturity the net CO2 absorption is negligible.

So whats the point? The point is the planet, in my ignorant opinion, is way beyond growing forests talking green and huging trees.

We need to do two things now!!!

Grow for wood not for trees when the trees are of their highest commercial value cut them down to make room for new faster growing juveniles to come through. The timber need to be used permanently, not burn or allowed to rot or it's a pointless excersise, if nessecary digg a bloody big hole and bury it, If we're lucky it'll turn into coal or oil after a couple of million years. To be used for lubrication purposes only.

Secondly, we have the solutions to our energy requirements now! Solar, Bio-fuels Wind, Hydro even though I hate to say it Nuclear and let's not forget Corn, the list goes on. Don't give us this crap about costs and economic viability, these are the words of fools. Wake up you idiots! we aren't talking money we're talking suvival, so it's everyone duty to lobby anyone with any infuence to force the governments of today to legislate development and use of sustianalble energy and reduce fossil fuel use immediatly. I here polititions say but this will cost jobs. Well if they ingnore this any longer there'll be jobs galore but the cost will be billions of lives. Also governments in developed nations should legislate that all new buildings produce a suplus of solar generated electricity to feed back into the grid. I know that this in Australia costs less that 10% of the cost of the average house. All private vehicle that don't get better than say 40mpg should be baned without special exemption. There should be fines for blatant energy and resource wastage. There needs to some evironmental imact cost factored into industry to balance the profit orientation of business with it's impact. Lets try to get it through their thick sculls that future generations will look at this gereration of leaders as those that destroyed or saved the planet, the choice is theirs. It is the governments responsibility to explain to the ignorant and the greedy that we have no choice but to act.

Now in reponse to some of the previous comments. To Cowanon You assume alot. I can find any reference to what the envisage trees need to look like or why you would even contemplate a softwood plantation as model? Why imply the requirement for developing super trees? they are already there. Your ideas about the commecial benefits of tropical and sub tropical trees are crap some of the finest furniture grade timbers in the World are Tropical, you obiously come form the Softwood world. Well I'll tell you Hardwood is superior for all structural purposes (Bold statement aye!). The reason you think softwood is superiour is because it in general is lighter and much easier to work (most timber workers as with the whole of humanity are lazy and after the easiest option not the best option). I would prefer teak funiture as opposed to pine, I would prefer Jarrah Outdoors as opposed to Redwood. Put a piece of softwood out in a termite infessted area with a piece or tallowood or Ironbark and comback and check the results, do the same test in water. As far as density. I have been susainably logging the native stands of eucalypt for poles posts and saw logs on 10-15year cycles for many years and the recovery growth is amazing, the slighty lower density allows for faster regrowth and the logging practices have lower impact on the surronding trees. According to Cowanon I'm not making any money (scoff) I'm not doing this for sport. Also I've seen several softwood plantation totally fry in only moderate bushfires. Whats the good of that? Also I can have a sawlog from scratch in less than thirty years. So Cowanon yes a tropical rain forest takes thousands of years to mature but that is not a tree it is an entire eco-system I didn't think we were talking about forests but CO2 absorbsion which is wood not forests.

As for a couple of the other comments about costs. Ive got no idea on your costs but I planted 140,000 white gum, spotted gum and blackbutts on 250acres for around $350,000 about 15 years ago. $2.50/tree an going costs are virtually no existant no watering or maintainence only occasional weed control and fire hazard reduction. I haven't evevn visited the property in the last 6 years but there have been no major fires and even though we've been in drought for what seems forever. Alls well touch wood. When I say forever say about five years and no normal rain for at least 15 years. No climate change huh?

Sorry for all that, I could be wrong! but I may be right so grow more wood use more wood and tell the powerful people to get of there butts and saves us all!!!

That's the spirit! Plant trees, and biomass of all kinds. There is sufficient technology to use it now, and better is coming. I will soon be firing up my corn stove, and saving lots of money this winter in Illinois. There is technology to turn heat directly into electricity, but the products are not scaled to homepower yet.

We need more doing, and less talking.

All the best,

Ron Wagner

Thanks for all the comments regarding growing more trees to absorb CO2

I intend to start an action based research project on this subject in order to get results quickly

Any help would be welcome

willassociates@blueyonder.co.uk

Eucalyptus is not a good tree for most of the earth as it requires largest amount of water from soil. It is a water evaporator tree. It also does not have fuits and its leavs are no good for animals. It does have wood value, easily grows, it also has a tall tre yielding long polse like wood.

Use it where you have lots of rain and flood.

There was a social forestry program in India wonded by world bank to plant trees. Idea was to have fodder for animals, fuits for men, and finally wood for home. People wasted their agriculture land in planting this useless tree, spoiled their water starving land, killed their animals without fodder or grass, and onverted their place in useless dryland. This was a sin, which all world bank fellows and Government of India knows.

Please don't teach such wrong thing as it may spoil the entire country. Hope you understand and publicly admit your mistake. I am sure you may have lot more good idea and we will like to share those and will appreciate them.

Firstly I would like to concede we come from completely different population denstities. I don't think it is appropriate for any of the buden of these programs to be impossed on countries with a high population density or intensive agriculture required to sustain it's own people. I am Australian. The population density in India is over 100 times that of Australia's. The areas of underutilised land here is massive, and I'm sure there are many other suitable areas World wide.

Secondly I know there are some species of eucalypt that can pump in excess of 200 litres of water/day but of the hundreds of species there are just as many that require a very small amount. If the choosen tree "any tree not just eucalyptus" requires any supplimentary watering choose again.

The rainfall in Australia ranges from 3.6 meters in the North East to virtually nothing in central Australia and you'll find trees most places except the harshest deserts.

So let me rephrase. If you have spare space plant trees if you don't help someone who does.

Shyam,

Please look up Eucalyptus again, they are extremely drought and fire tolerant. They survive on sporadic rainfall and the timber is some of the strongest available anywhereand has much higher than usual fuel density an well as termite resistance. The natural oils are perfect substitutes for many industrial solvents. Oil extraction is a good way to provide income for under employed workers. China has learnt this lesson well and is now a much larger supplier or Eucalyptus oil than Australia. These trees have a huge potential to break the poverty cycle, possibly in India too.

Eucalyptus trees are the main stay of the honey industry in Australia, might be good for India too. Honey generates income and foriegn exchange with zero environmental harm.

In open savannah grassland Eucalyptus trees co-exist with the grass species and hold the soil together come drought come rain.

In fact, you are wrong, in more than a few ways:

1. Eucalyptus is not a tropical tree or, to my knowledge, a tree that would be suited, or benign, in most third world countries (but, correct me if I'm mistaken). And, apart from feeding Koalas, has very limited application. And--as you are probably aware of its ban from importation into the US--has caused considerable ecosystem damage outside of Australia.
2. A temperate climate tree is not, of necessity, a softwood. However, a hardwood (or broadleaf) generally takes much longer to maturity...if there is to be a commercial return.
3. Furniture making is not the only use for trees, but it is a better use for hardwoods.
4. I assumed nothing but what was there to be seen; you, however, have apparently assumed--in the absence of anything I wrote--that I was proposing that third world peoples should be subsidized to go about planting mid- & northern-latitude, montane, and midlatitude-rainforest softwoods in tropical, tropical-seasonal, and savanna regions--where the thirld-world indigenous mostly live--and on land (largely cleared, low fertility land) that can no longer sustain even its indigenous tree species (hard or soft), or in climates to which non-tropical softwood trees are not adapted. Barring such assumptions (professed as they were in the name of supposed nothing-knowingness ) realization might have come (mate) that, in large measure, both our posts converge on the same conclusion (for the sake also of which I am pleased to have contributed to some of your more positive points), namely: that the notion of paying the "third world" to grow trees would most likely not have very strong legs to stand on.
5. The preference for softwood over non-topical hardwoods (broadleafs)for construction does not rely solely on easier workability, but also on supply sustainability--a fact well supported by the high worldwide demand for American softwood lumber/timber exports.
6. Apart from water content in "green" lumber (and apart from certain tropical hardwoods not best applied to construction), softwoods have little if any weight advantage over hardwoods...which are often not as heavy when seasoned.
7. Apart from long growth cycles, it would make questionable sense to subsidize high value (third world) hardwoods (such as you mentioned) when there is no shortage of indigenous capital (human and otherwise) invested in such trees; and where those subsidized would be placed in direct competition with existing, and much more powerful, interests.
8. It was also wrong not to realize, that allowing an otherwise reasonable and thought-provoking post to degenerate into an angry, invective-filled tirade, might also have fallen just short of causing much of it to go entirely unseen.
9. In speaking derisively about super trees and such, you were also wrong...in failing to bear in mind, that my statements were not in relation to a tree's utility but, rather, to the practical impossibility of choosing, breeding (or even "designing") any tree species which, on balance, would significantly increase the conversion of atmospheric CO₂: that the only way to accomplish such an end with trees is to plant more trees--more trees than are harvested--more trees of any kind, anywhere they will thrive and do no harm. I would assume you are, however, aware that there are a great many such tree planting programs which have as their aim not only beautification, or habitat restoration (and such), but also the objective of air purification--including increased CO^₂ conversion. In that regard, the best advice to the original inquirer might be that it would probably be counterproductive to focus on any one tree...just pick trees that grows well (and innoculously) where they are to be grown...provided that the potential for sustained growth (say, in the tropics) has not already been destroyed. (Don't, for example, plant eucalyptus in California just because it grows fast and is hardier there than some native species.) In this light, a subsidy program might indeed make some sense--for example, in promoting the growth of "urban forests" in third world countries--places where millions live in cities--places where there are huge numbers of people (existing human capital) that would benefit in a positive (a work for pay) way...and without risking conflict with existing interests.
10. I might be wrong (here and before) if, based on my long-held perception of Australia as a 1st-world country, I inadvertently gave offense to, or aroused the frustrations of, a certain, hard-laboring, successful, long-term tree farmer who's self-identity and sensibilities are more closely aligned with the thirld world(?).

Enough said.

OK lets agree to disagree with the commercial benifits and it's utility. I have worked with all types of timber for many years from growing and milling to making of fine furniture and most things in between. Yes I am one eyed when it comes to timber but this comes from experience. Please don't degrade the value of my investments by saying that it's only good for feeding Koalas I am currently achieving $25/cm sawlogs and $75/cm for poles not bad for very maginal land and yield / acre is good.

Many eucalypt species are tropical as many are temperate. Eucalypts are native from the equator to the snow in New Zealand and beyond. I don't want just the 3rd World to plant trees. I want the whole world to plant trees. In approppriate places with appropriate trees, anything, Now!!!

I thought eucalypts were baned in the USA because they grew to quickly and became a noxious weed, which really is a good sign of there durability, and eucalyptus are explosive in a fire and they were being grown in urban evironments. Yes they should be baned in that type of locallity. N.B. even though eucalypts are prone to fire they recover extremely well and it can be said that fire at the appropriate time is benificial.

Don' forget hardwoods and softwoods are not defined by there locallity or weight or hardness but by the nature of their cell structure. Balsa is a hardwood.

Please don't say tropical and sub tropical trees are nearly worthless look closer you'll be surprised how good it is.

Thankyou and now lets work together.

Fair enough. And I am happy to be further enlightened about the eucalyptus by one who is more knowledgable than he lets on. Please understand that my comments about koalas were intended tongue-in-cheek, and neither to be all encompassing nor as an affront to you and your livelihood. I will admit to some personal misgivings about the eucalyptus, derived from personal experiences...yes, in California. Those that grow here do not make good firewood; they will chew up a chainsaw chain like crazy; I don't consider them to be very appealing in appearance, but I'm quite sure I'd have a different opinion seeing them in their own native habitats.

One thing I had hoped we might find agreement about is that, while the planting of trees is not a bad idea in and of itself, the concept seeming to be proposed by WillAssoc. is a bit...how shall I say...hard to get enthused about. First, it would be nice to know the exact agenda behind the need to involve the "third world," which is not to say that such involvement is inappropriate, only that it might not really have much to do with helping the earth, or with helping those in the third world. Secondly, I think many would agree that the notion that a particular tree--perhaps even one that would be transplanted to environs alien to itself--could be selected on the basis that it would be a (shall we call it?) a "super CO₂ absorber" is not well founded. Nothing in my background tells me that there is any more than one photosynthetic process among green leafed plants; or that any plant will "process" more CO₂ than it requires as a function of its size, growth and self repair needs. And I would guess that any tree would be likely to convert CO₂ best in the environment to which it is adapted--whether that's in the third world or the first. I would further take issue with the notion of planting a huge, permanent, single-species stand of trees anywhere, but most especially in regions closer to the equator. Why? Simply because a never-to-be harvested monocultural tree stand would face a very good chance--moreso in the tropics--of becoming host to parasites. It would not be a matter of if, but when, as I see it. And when that happened (in a single-species tree stand) there would be a good chance of losing a large portion, if not all, of the planted trees--and losing the subsidies invested in those trees--and the labors of those third worlders. Therefore I would say that more enduring help to the environment is likely to come: (1) from preserving (and conserving, and replenishing where possible) the diminishing stands of trees that are already in existence (including by good forestry-/farming-management cultural practices); and (2) by planting a diversity of supplemental "CO₂ converting" trees in order to ensure the survival of a major portion--whether that be diversity on a single large tract, or diversity spread over many smaller tracts. So let me conclude by saying that I would hope--and my prior postings were intended to this purpose--that WillAssoc....will take a second look at the CO₂ absorption idea from a less constrictive, less self-limiting point of view.

Thank you again for your reply, both here and before.

Where you end up in this post regarding diversity and good forestry is commendable. I hope we as an entire world can revive these practices where they are lost and spread the good word where a total exploitation culture has always prevailed. I agree that unless there are some genetically modified trees developed for specific applications that are proven to be better all round then we are best using all the diversity nature has given us and that native species have been shown experimentally to perform best in the long term. On the other hand it is better to for instance to grow Tasmanian Blue Gum than to grow nothing or to grow pine. Hardwoods (especially Eucalypts and Acacias) do store a lot of energy and fast growing ones amplify the effect.

Permanent unharvested plantations would be even more useless than "World Heritage Wet Tropics Rainforest" for the atmosphere and environment generally. Timber harvested and used in building and furniture is actually quite well sequestered and displaces unsustainable materials such as plastic and unnecessary metals. While metal can certainly be recycled its refining and recycling eat up fossil fuels, timber on the other hand needs no fossil inputs especially when "Hog Fuels" are used to power the mill and even export energy.

I'm watching this "Hog Fuel" situation for its possible contribution to fossil fuel reduction as well as bush fire control and nuisance smoke / pollution reduction.

Well said Imac my friend,

Your findings concur completely with the sustainable yield model used so successfully and for so long, before Graeme Richardson sold out the environment to the greenies. Quality timber used in construction and furniture is sequestered (as they call it these days) for a long time. New young vigorous trees replace the over ripe specimens and keep the whole area healthy.

My argument on this topic is, we had a sustainable and exportable technology for forest management. But now, no one is going to listen to idiots who squander resources. Unfortunately the expertise has been let lie dormant since the early 1990s, the infrastructure has decayed and the visionary people who made it all possible have not been allowed to pass on their knowledge. Many of the originals are still alive but now very old, we need to fix Richardson's stuff up quickly or forever lose the expertise and the "greenhouse benefit".

On my last trip North I picked up a price sheet for native timbers (sourced from private property) at Tarzali Sawmill, low value indeed!

To err is human but to really stuff it up just add politicians.

In reply to this message all I have to say is Im glad someone stopped the argument and just gave a real life answer, not a proposition. Way to go. Good luck in your buisness man, you got a good healthy thing going, unlike most foresters (which I am studying to become). I am currently enrolled in Unity College, Maine (USA) studying foresty and Landscape/hort. I have just stsrted a group project whose goal is to find out how many trees we would need to "compensate" our carbon output. Not bad idea. Obviously, we know it wont directly affect us to the point where we dont need to worry about our emissions, but we cant wait to complete the project. My part was to research which trees would be the most effective in absorbing CO₂. Thank you for finally answering the original question. Way to be. Obviously it was lost amidst the argument. So your conclusion was the denser the wood, the more carbon it holds, correct? I really am having issues finding detailed records. So agin, I will repost the question:
Which trees are the best for carbon absorbtion? Specifics would be awesome.

In respose to everything else I have read here.... corn isnt a bad option when you think in terms of biodiesel, but you need to keep in mind soil degradation. It is a neat idea, however, to think that corn could be used to get Hydrogen, which I will agree is a perfect fuel along with wind. To the guest (I think it was another guest) who stated it would be banned because of cancer causing compounds.... get your facts down. Hydrogen fuel use puts out pure distilled water. Even the production of the hydrogen wouldnt produce those compounds. What about the cars now? We have so much CO being emmitted in cities yet little to nonedrop dead from CO poisoning (just an similar example). We need to get off of fossil fuel period, I dont care how. Imac is right in saying its a matyter of survival at this point, not money. Money cant do anything for you if your dead. We need to grow more hardwood trees and use them in a better manner. Period.

Hi Imac,

Just wanted to say good on you for some extremly sensible and intelligent views..its been bugging me that people think planting trees is the answer to absorbing carbon when their net absorbtion rate is zero when mature...so yeah, chop em down once mature and make long term products from them that are not going to de-compose, and I like the big hole idea too!

Left to their own devics the forests of the world absorbed and emitted carbon in beautifull equalibreum but humans have changed that and we've got to be realistic, I used to be a bit of a tree higger myself, but if that trees not absorbing carbon than I agree that there is a strong aregument to remove it. This should not happen, however in allready estableshed forest that is offerin gimportant habitat to wildlife but in areas that are being re-forested that have allready been environmetally dergregated.

Whatever, just a thought and Im only just starting to lean about the whole suvbject so I would love to be proved wrong by anyone who knows what they are talkin about,

Peaceeveryone, Nial

Trees are not simple CO2 recycle plants. Trees make forest and great eco system and they do regulate the moisture level, give shade to others small plants, creepers and many that are of fruit and medicinal value. A great biosphere emerges from plant and animal life system in the forest. If you plant one tree somewhere then it only gives you good local feeling but hardly changes the eco system of the earth.

If you change the forest into dry deserts then you know the kind of earth you will have. You can very well go to middle east and feel it.

If you think trees are not for earth then you can as well think that animals are not for earth. I am not sure if many will like such ideas.

There was this man who was doing research on barren land and he wanted more area for his research so got enough funds to convert the earth into barren land. Then there wasn't any one to read his research. This may sound too much but that is what people are doing and aiming to. Talk great and do rubbish. Happy now and doomed in the next century.

I agree totaly shyam,

trees are more than just carbon absorbing machines, and the eco system they create is magical and magnificant and essential to the planet.

However, if we are looking at ways to absorb carbon what is the best approach?

Just planting forests maybe effective but if we look at planting areas of un-forested land as carbon sponges purly to absorb carbon is there not an argument to have young trees that absorb more carbon than they emitt and remove the older trees?

Please dont think Im suggesting removing mature forest, that should be left as is and not damaged further, but if we are to preserve the amazing eco-systems we find in forests around the world do we not have to absorb carbon as a matter of urgency and have areas of managed carbon absorbing forests?

I hate the idea of interepting the growth of a tree by replacing it with a younger seedling but drastic measures are required to reverse what humans have allready done..Im just thinking out loud and just looking at what could be done with curent land that has been cleared but not being productive..thats a lot of land believe me, just cos crops are growing it does not mean land is productive, often it is govt policy keeping the farming alive and not demand, Im refering to the so called 'first world countries' here where subsidies keep dead farming practicess afloat. Therefore why not grow 'carbon sponge' forests on these land masses that are not contributing in a positive way anyway.

Hey once again, I welcome critiscism, Im just a concerned human being with a furrowed brow at the current state of things and looking at alternatives so please rip my arguments apart with intelligent critiscm

Take care all, Nial

Dear Neil

If you look at trend, the forest is depleting gradually world over and it has hurt the countries like Ethiopia to the level of hunger and death. Forest are life systems and they should not be disturbed and if we can not create one, let these be there.

We must think of ways to reduce the burning of fossil fuel and Coal. Best bet for the nest generation is nuclear fission and fusion and alternative energy sources for individuals.

The moment these technology take over, we will be called dirty civilization.

It is better to get civilized where there is time rather than waiting for the next generation to do that, keep doing all rubbish to earn that bad name for the entire civilization.

Indians used to be clean and forest living people. They even used to meditate on Himalayan. The culture of current western life killed all that great life system. Invaders brought all short of their problems here. There was and there is a chance for the world to follow the ancient way of using minimum resources and perhaps only for that is essential. We are pushing the world into fire like a football game. It will kill us all if we keep doing that. How many species of plants, trees and animals are gone because of humans for greed will be hard to count and we call ourselves civilized. We argue and defend something in one pretext or the other with limited information to support the things we want to justify. Like this people justify this way and that way what ever they think it is to be done. We all say that danger is coming and civilizations will be wiped out in one go. We are getting very close to it and very fast. It is just in 20 years we learnt many things and we became 20 times more destructive. What is that we learnt? Actually nothing.

People keep digging earth and each day want to do 10 times faster or even million times faster as the rate at which money pores is the symbol of greatness. Gandhi who left everything and lived in only one piece of cloth, one goat for milk and small hut is not a great thing any more. People plan to create biggest blow to people and nature to show they are great. Is all that any great? We hardly need little food to survive and fruits from forest will do that and people can even live with little cloths and small shelter. Nature is the greatest filter and reason to bring in that can survive in tough environment. We should only use knowledge and not lots of resources from nature. Then we can be called civilized. Think of one lion killing 100 animal per day for fun and only one to eat in an year. That is what we are. Highly Civilized.

Your note about eucalyptus in Australia is very interesting. I believe some species of eucalyptus with grow extremely well in England. But what use can the timber be put to? There seems to be no experience of this timber in the UK. Does anyone know anything about this? I would be very pleased to hear from them,

Yours sincerely,

Dr R.J.Neale

I was very interested in your experience of growing eucalyptus in Australia. Do you know of any book which details the agronomy and end uses for for eu timber in Australia or New Zealand as I am interested in growing it in England

There is plenty of info available regarding Eucalypts. A good starting point is the WA Dept of Conservation and Land Management (CALM). End uses depend on the species. I suggest choose the end use then choose the species. Tasmanian Blue Gum would likely do well in the UK but is rather bland. Eucalypts of Southern Mainland Australia will thrive in a Mediteranean climate. Nothern inland species are good for arid climates.

Tasmanian Blue Gum is grown for woodchip / paper (as is Marri (WA Red Gum)) but is capable of other uses. Jarrah is useable for everything from railway sleepers, construction and wharf pylons to the finest grade furniture. Jarrah is easy to work with sharp tools and is termite and decay resistant and is a beautiful red to purple and brown timber. Iron Bark is hard grey brown and is great for structural, fence posts and when selected, furniture. Spotted gum is grey brown and is the mainstay of the higher quality construction sector but is also nice for furniture. Queensland Blue Gum is a beautiful red timber used for structural uses and furniture, it is also used for roof supports in coal mines.

Murray River Red Gum is a gorgeous red timber best reserved for high value projects such as boats. This is just a fraction of species available.

There is a Eucalypt, Acacia or Casaurina (to name but 3 groups) for every purpose, they have properties of amazing value, from fire resistance to stability, colour, figure, spring, stiffness, decay resistance, hardness, lubricity and massive strength.

Probably my favourite non Eucalypt timber is Silky Oak ( a Casaurina) which I use for everything from furniture and turnery to smoking Sunday lunch.

Thank for all your comments on my original question about growing more trees

There appears to be a measure of practicality in the idea

The question I need to ask is how much CO2 could be absorbed by say 100,000acres, how much it would cost and whats the timescale??

Good question.

It takes about 4-10 years to grow long life trees and it take only few minutes to cut them or make them go into smoke and CO2. It is not just trees that give CO2. When nuclear device was dropped on Hirisima also there was lots of smoke and CO2 out of men.

First we all have to stop generating CO2 so rapidly as this world wasn't ever to be smoked out the way it is done now. It will start a chain reaction and will smoke out all living things that you see now and will clean itself for new civilization. It will get rid of bad creatures when it feels that way.

I wish to thank all participants so far for their contributions

Based on all the comments received, I believe there is a possibility that growing more trees in the near future will make a difference; I therefore want to push this forward with your help.

I am contacting Universities for a PhD "Action Based" Reseach Programme which will concentrate on getting results.

Too much discussion and no action as been the problem so far, can you help me make a difference??

Let me have your comments and help on this?

PLEASE

what is the world consumption of Carbon ?

what is the Co2 out-put by this ?

contribution by Oil,Coal, others ?

Is it correct to say that one Ton Carbon

produces 2.14 ton co 2 ?

consumes 1.14 ton oxygen ?

Dear Mr.Andyappan,

The combustion of Carbon to Carbon-Di-Oxide is governed by STOICHOMETRIC RELATIONS which can be found in the Standard CHEMICAL ENGINEERING Books. You will find that: C + O2 = CO2, i.e 12(C) + 32(O2) = 44CO2. The Atomic Weight of Carbon and Molecular Weight of Oxygen is to be accounted or comes in to picture.

This means in simple terms, 1 Carbon + 2.66 O2 is equal to 3.66 CO2. i.e 1 Tonne of Carbon will need 2.66 Tonnes Of Oxygen for complete or perfect Combustion. and libetates 3.66 Tonnes of Carbon-Di-Oxide. If combustion is not complete then CO will be formed.

It is NOT as you referred that "one Ton Carbon produces 2.14 ton co 2 ? consumes 1.14 ton oxygen?. "

DHAYANANDHAN.S

The ratio of volumes (oxygen to carbon dioxide) in the stoichiometric relationship are 1:1. Thus the volume of O2 to CO2 are essentially equal. Using mass or weight may be misleading especially when you use coefficients without units (commonly representative of moles). You made several good points though.

If you are still interested in planting trees, may I suggest you contact the government of the Philippines, DENR. You might recall the disastrous land slide that buried an entire town there not so long ago...ultimately because of mismanaged clearing (denudation) of forested land? The decision was take to abandon the town--and leaving the bodies in their "nature's grave--because rebuilding would be far too daunting a task. It is a very large acreage/areage--one which might remain susceptible to erosion. A project such as you propose might serve both your purposes, as well as accelerate the restoration of that sight, as well as provide needed local economic benefits (read: provide work) to the affected area. Additionally, the need would be filled in a stable, friendly, welcoming country and location. Additional benefit is that the work would take place in a country with no shortage of highly educated citizens who could participate in the research aspect. Further, since P.I. derives much of its national income from forest resources, the project would probably receive welcoming consideration at the national and provincial government levels. Finally, costs would be comparatively low based on Dollar- or Pound-Peso exchange rates.

Kenaf...it absorbs co2 at 3-8 times that of trees

Hi there,

I am doing some research on kenaf. Can you steer me in the right direction as to where you got that data?

Thanks

Bill

Hi my friend.

I'm a civil engineer in tehran university in iran.

I want a lecture about co2 absorption power of different trees.

can you mail it for me?

I got my e-mail: milad_m_12@yahoo.com

thanks a lot.

What are your thoughts about bamboo?

Yes there are millions of acres of land around the world , that could be used to grow various crops. Also there are lots of coastal marshes and deltas that could be used. There are billions of tons of sediment that could be used for soil and fertilizer also. Try out Google Earth, and do some exploring around the USA and the rest of the world. Salt water can be used to grow reed marshes in desert areas near the ocean. Salt water, or desalinated water could be pumped into the Mojave desert of California, and make it into a garden.

Other than the available land issue, I agree about trying hemp. I wonder why it isn't a big deal in Canada, and other countries where it is legal though. Any ideas? I have never heard of any country making a profit out of it, except the THC rich drug type.

Fruit bearing trees were planted by grandfathers for their grandchildren. I did not see my grandfather but I happily enjoyed lots of fruit from trees that were planted by him just for me. His love lasted more with nice taste and fruity food than words that would have never reached me to say hello from heaven. If you are living for yourself in this world then it is really a pity. Live for those who will come here and will appreciate that you were here. Some will be remembered only as smoke signal generator and devils of the time. You can be like my grandfather or grandmother who planted lots of trees in several acres of land. Trees were giving fruits for the last 55 years for me. I did grow few for my children and now planting them for my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. I will not mind if they share all that with others also. I did share the fruits with others.

Isn't that what you're looking for ?

http://www.tree-nation.com

Hi Good people,

Bamboo is also fast growing and definitely has a role in bio-remediation of the planet and human sustainability. However, the water use, versatility, fibre strength, cultivation footprint and soil benefits are all inferior. There are no superfoods and it needs the land full time.

The macro challenge is human impacts, the symtoms are soil, climate, deforestation etc.

Hemp addresses all the issues simultaneously, a kind of anti bio-degradation tool beautifully matched to human needs.

Even the seed has the key Omega oils in the right proportion for human consumption, and the main protein, Edistin, is the most digestible known, as it has probably been in our diet for longer than wheat and soya etc.

I haven't even mentioned that hemp also effectively binds soil, preventing nutrient run off and the sort of mudslides that wipe out villages in places like Bangladesh. Incidentally, Bangladesh means something like Hemp Land, but of course, the idiots who banned it destroyed the native population, thus the mudslides.

So while there are many peripherally useful tools like Bamboo, none are even remotely as powerful, versatile or useful as Hemp.

Hemp represents a multi-faceted bio-supertool that matches human needs across the practical solutions board.

It is not a question of trying hemp out, it is already proven. Hemp occupied the role of oil in the pre-industrial world. The Russian Tzars made their fortune from it, the Napoleonic Wars were fought over Hemp supplies. There would have been no maritime nations or 'Hempires' like the Spanish, Portuguese or British without hemp, as the fibres were used for ropes, rigging, canvas (dutch word for cannabis), and uniforms for soldiers.

Most paper currencies are printed on paper with a hemp content as it has superior strength and is durable when wet, unlike wood fibres which are useless wet. Hemp clothing lasts much longer and the fibres can be recycled over and over again. Hemp requires less chemicals and processing to create a superior paper, and anyway produces 400% more fibre per land use than trees, which should simply be left to grow. The first Levi's were made with hemp, from Nim in France (de(of)Nim - denim). Hemp denim will last much longer than cotton. Hemp can be processed as fine as silk, if required.

I could go on and on, but there is simply nothing else in this class. If you want a healthy world with humans still in the mix, hemp (not grease) is the word!

Peace

Please address the fact that hemp is legal in Canada, and no one is excited about producing it. At least I have not heard of anyone growing it as a large scale crop. Nor have I heard of anyone marketing it as food. Maybe someone from Canada has an answer.

Equally important is an understanding of the alternatives to trees. Corn plants as

an example represent far greater efficiency than trees. As typically there are

almost 40,000 plants per acre, that's an incredible 4,000,000 plants per every

one hundred acres every year. The lifecycle is such that the CO2-oxygen conversion

rates are time maximized as compared to that of a tree or an acre of trees, is not

even close.

There were 12,000 acres of hemp under cultivation in Canada in 2007, down from 48,000 acres in 2006. The primary successes in marketing are from oil seed products, clothing, and other niche culture attractions. There was a problem marketing the hemp due to lack of processing facilities that were suitable. This is according to the Alberta Govt. Statistics. Certain areas are licensed for hemp production so they can be monitored.

Synthetics may have robbed hemp of a lot of its market, or possibly the Third World has stolen the market due to cheap labor. Mainly in rope production. I do believe it might be competitive with miscanthus, switchgrass, and mixed grasses for biomass production however. The problem is keeping out the thc producing varieties hiding in the acreage. I have a feeling that might not be a problem to Carlos. Since I work as a psychiatric RN, I can tell you that marijuana addiction is indeed a problem for many people. The thc content has been vastly increased since the 60s and it far more powerfully psychoactive. It is also even more carcinogenic than tobacco.

My interest in hemp is focused on industrial hemp as a resource for human sustainability, not hidden thc in any acreage (or hectarage).

The connection between thc varieties and industrial, non-narcotic varieties has been used to blight the progress of this ultra useful bio-tool, and i think it is irresponsible to infer that my passion is thc driven or associated.

As far as thc 'marijuana' goes, it has been present all along despite the ban, and is reputedly the biggest cash crop in California. Thus it is the only type grown in the US, is widely available, and since it can be grown indoors under lights, it is very unlikely to ever be eradicated from use - ever, or affected by industrial growing.

Arguing that it is likely to make things worse than they are is crazy, the opposite is true. Growing hemp will in fact water down the thc content of illegal crops, as the pollen carries on the wind and will fertilise the females, reducing the value and potency of illicit grows.

I might also point out that 'marijuana' crops are spaced widely to maximise flower production, and are generally shorter than industrial hemp, making it easy to spot illicit plants among hemp crops. The pollen from male flowers would anyway ruin the potency and yield of illicit plants.

New varieties such as Chameleon turn yellow on maturity, showing up any illicit plants that remain green, which makes it even easier to tell if any odd stuff is going on.

I will stop short of making any personal inferences or assumptions about your motivations or agenda's, as I did not enjoy that part of your comment in any way.

Perhaps we should stick to the topic, which is saving our asses from climate change, for which hemp is the definitive solution.

Sorry for the innuendo. I still wonder why hemp is not taking off in Canada, where it is legal. If it is the best biomass, I am all for it. Especially if we can keep the thc out of it. Although that is a losing battle anyway. I commend you on your knowledge. Thanks for the information. I will be comparing hemp to miscanthus, switchgrass and mixed grasses.

Tropical maize which,does not produce large ears, is being seriously studied, as a biomass source. It has low nitrogen demand, grows 15 feet tall, and is high in sugars throughout the plant. It can be grown and harvested with existing farm equipment.

Downsides might be that it still needs good flat ground, lots of water, and there would be no high protein animal feed by product. A little genetic engineering might solve some of those problems, and that is exactly what they are working on.

What are the best trees that absorb CO2?

Each plant is location specific.

Could we grow trees like this in the third world?

Native plants must be grown locally. Any biomass plant has potential to produce locally cost effective clean energy in addition to the potential food produced by the plant.

Would we need to invest in water supplies to make it work?

Initially irrigation may be required for some plants in some local situations. Arid regions produce rain within 3-5 years after irrigated vegetation flourishes.

Why don't we get the third world to grow trees and we pay for it? Local land is the first world for all local societies. Both local and distant worlds, adjacent and/or three times removed never reject well intended financial assistance. No local one respects foreign condesending assistance with political, financial, low or high sociciety strings attached.

It's better to get locals to grow food than to produce products which need massive transportation!! Give a local a fish and he becomes dependently fed for a day. Teach a local how to fish and he can feed his society. Control currency and you control the political and societial ambitions. Independently produce local energy and local value and the local society has freedom to choose.

Hi, Im currently shifted to a sustainability Engineer, just a year ago.

below are to answer your question.

- All fruit bearing trees are best for CO2 absorption.

- Yes! you could grow trees in the third world, especially in Asia / tropical region.

- No, water is abundant in tropical region.

-Third world earn for living by planting fruit bearing trees. They can only sell to you the fruits and not the trees. Perhaps, the so called advance country needs to re-asses to learn how to plant a trees and reduced mining practice and manufacturing of military weapons, stop nuclear testing activities. Shift their research in natural farming and this will save us all.

The problem is that the best solutions, like fruit growing or hemp cultivation, cannot get through because of the general underlying values of the global system. If best practice in every area, including CO2 absorption, was implemented, we could sort things out pretty quickly.

Nine times out of ten, best practice is a threat to some vested interest somewhere, and strings will be pulled to prevent implementation.

Hemp is the perfect example, industrialists from the paper, cotton, man-made fibre and other industries got it banned on the pretext that it would increase the use of illicit, narcotic varieties (marijuana), which, incidentally have gone literally from strength to strength since the ban!

On that logic, all poppies should be banned to prevent opium cultivation. The DEA, a construct (like government) of financial interests, continually enforce the ban in the face of state legislation to allow a licensed growing system.

I suggest you watch zeitgeist addendum on youtube to find out more about the issues underlying our insane society. Until the system incentivizes best practice (i.e. a resource based economy) we won't get far in this or any field of environmental or social improvement.

Still, keep searching for the best approaches, we will have to use them soon or we will all die...

Can you please inform how much CO2 is being absorbed by an "average" tree in the jungle of Brazil?

None. Plants do not "absorb" carbon dioxide any more than hominids absorb oxygen.

Dear Anonymous,

Why is everybody talking about carbon dioxide absorbtion if it does not exist? Do trees eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere?

JB

Have you ever heard of photosynthesis?

6CO2 + 6H2O -> C6H12O6 + 6O2

Dear Mr. John Boot

Your Quiery isWhy is everybody talking about carbon dioxide absorbtion

One part of you Quiery is "Do trees eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere?"

The CO2 IS NOT TOTALLY ELIMINATED, but ABSORBED to a great extent from the Atmospheric Air.

The plants/vegetation, and trees prepare their food by the process of PHOTOSYNTHESIS, for which SUN LIGHT, CARBON-Di-OXIDE,CHLOROPHYLL AND WATER IS ESSENTIATIALLY REQUIRED. In this process, the CO2 IS ABSORBED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE and OXYGEN IS LIBERATED TO ATMOSPHERE.

2n part of your Quiery "Why is everybody talking about carbon dioxide absorbtion"

The rate of CO2 dumped in the Atmosphere, in the present scenario is around 40.2 GIGA TONNES/YEAR. But the OXYGEN liberated by plants/vegetation and trees is FAR,FAR LESS than this, and as a result, the CO2 Levels are building up in the Atmospheric Air., and it is currently about 342 ppm, when compared to 240 ppm level in the beginning of the previous century.

From the year 1950 onwards, the EMISSION of CO2 IS IN THE EVER INCREASING RATE/ORDER and TREE CUTTING i.e De-Forestation is also in the increasing order, NETT EFFECT is BUILDING UP OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERIC AIR.

Once it reaches, 550 ppm level, in the Atmospheric Air, the vegetation/plants will get wiped out on our Planet EARTH. When it reaches 800 ppm, level, the man kind cannot survive in this planet earth, and PERISH as there won't be oxygen to the required level for breathing. You know very well OXYGEN IS A MUST for us.

THAT IS WHY EVERY BODY IS TALKING ABOUT " ABSORPTION of CARBON-Di-OXIDE."

DHAYANANDHAN.S

Please study the diferences between respiration, photosynthesis, and transpiration.

http://www.ontariocorn.org/envt/envphoto.html, http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm#carbon,

willassociates@blueyonder.co.uk

A single, full grown tree converts approx 48#/yr of carbon dioxide to oxygen. Green house test results show that as the carbon dioxide level increases in the atmosphere, the conversion rate speeds up, corn grows faster. The 21% osygen normally associates with 0.035% carbon dioxide. Plant growth rate increases as the oxygen content decreases. For normal growth rates, corn converts three times more carbon dioxide to oxygen than the competitive crops. Crops convert six times more carbon dioxide to oxygen than trees, per acre. Corn converts 36 times more carbon dioxide to oxygen than an equal acreage of trees. Check the numbers:

Driven by a desire to stop global warming, help Maryland grain farmers, and save money on high natural gas bills, a dozen Takoma Park families are using corn-burning stoves to heat their homes. Corn is an amazingly clean fuel, with almost none of the dirty particulates produced by oil or wood-burning stoves. Corn stoves create almost no smoke and only a very faint odor like that of roasted corn, which dissipates almost entirely after drifting 50 feet. But what about corn's carbon dioxide emissions? Like all plants, corn removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it grows, and then distributes the carbon equally throughout the plant, which consists of one third grain, one third stalk and one third roots. When corn grain is burned, therefore, approximately one third of this carbon is returned to the atmosphere. The un-harvested stalk and roots are returned to the soil and eventually the carbon in these parts of the plant is released (mineralized) to the atmosphere through microbial activity. The rate and amount of carbon mineralized, however, depends on many factors, including type and amount of tillage, soil type, amount of soil organic matter, climate and moisture. Taking these factors into account, and the fact that the farmer who supplies the Takoma Park Corn Burners Co-op uses minimum tillage, we estimated that as high as 10% of the total carbon fixed by the corn plants is sequestered or stored in the soil. To further determine the carbon dioxide emissions related to the corn burning stoves we calculated the amount of carbon dioxide released from the fossil fuel inputs used in the production, harvest and delivery of the corn, including: · fertilizer and herbicide production · fuel for planting, harvesting, ground preparations and manure spreading · fuel for drying of corn · fuel for transport to Takoma Park Results of these calculations showed that the corn used for the stoves produced a negative emission of 484 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ton of corn; in other words, almost 500 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ton of corn is stored in the soil and removed from the atmosphere (see CO2 budget table). This negative emission is a direct result of the sustainable practices of the farmer who uses reduced tillage, fertilizes almost entirely with manure, and applies minimal amounts of herbicides and no pesticides. For More Information: Diana Friedman, Soil Scientist, 301-585-1375

Thank you for your informative article Diana, I enjoyed learning some of the points you emphaized. However, if approximately 25% [(500lb)(100)/2000lbs] of CO2 is not released by the process of burning corn (and tilling the remains) and approximately 10% is retained in the soil, what happened to the other 15%. Maybe, one of us missed something. I really liked your article so do not think I am being critical. Usually, some ash remains from burning vegetation...maybe that is where the remaining CO2 is retained.

Diana did a splendid job. No one knows everything, not even me. Consistent with what Diana calculated, also compare the alternative - good clean electricity.

Good clean electricity in the US is produced

by burning local coal - 50%, nuclear (10% TVA, 25% Nuclear at The Southern Co), natural gas, foreign fuel oil, less than 10% hydro (except Washington State which produces up to 90% hydro electricity and TVA which produces 10% hydro power). The average US human using US electricity is responsible for 35 tons flyash/environmental air pollutant (West coast) to 55 tons ash (east coast) per year per person consuming approximately 40-50 million BTU per year transmitted over the electrical grid (15-30% grid loss), 50% boiler efficiency loss, 8-15% cooling tower loss (except North Carolina which dumps waste heat into local water).

Diana also clarified that 33% of corn is root stock which grows and is naturally buried in the ground, 33% corn stalk and cob which is returned to the ground durning harvest time by the mechanical combine harvester, and 33% whole kernel shelled corn kernels which are consumed by the corn stove. Of the 33% kernels which are locally grown, and locally consumed with 98.6% efficiency in the corn stove, only 5 gallons ash is produced annually per household (2.5 persons or about one gallon per person per year).

Readily one can subtract one gallon (less than 2 pounds corn combustion potash fertilizer) from the 35-55 tons flyash off set using grid supplied electricity. Apply that 2 pounds of potash to an asparaghus bed which will produce it own weight annually in healthy asparaghus.

For corn combustion, Diana could have calculated a net reduction in pollution storage capacity of 55 tons plus 484 pounds per person per year.

The average household would rather consider paying the local minimum grid electrical bill of $20 per month plus the cost of local corn heat purchased from a local farmer at $5/bushel or $10/bushel from the local corn silo.

You would have to be buying propane and not natural gas to be saving any money with corn at present prices. There is a fair amount of work, and maintenance involved also. I left the stove in my old energy inefficient house. I bought it when corn was $1.80 a bushel. It made sense then. I live in central Illinois in a small energy efficient house now, and payed less than $50 for natural gas last month. Probably $100 this month. I would rather burn wood, since it is often free, aside from the labor. All vegetation is C02 neutral, and a good cornfield would rival about any stand of trees. A lot of CO2 goes into cultivating and harvesting it however. Trees do their own thing. Many, like willow and aspen can be pollarded or cut down and will replace themselves. They also don't need much, if any, fertilizer.

I like kenaf. Sequesters a lot of CO2 and can be grown for food, fiber, animal feed and energy.

I guess you all know that the climate figures have been fixed so Al Gore and co can carbon tax us to hell when carbon is NOTHING to do with global warming as the majority of suppressed scientists have been trying to tell us.

'Climate Gate' is what they are calling the hacked emails from the climate HQ in the UK.

It's all here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPQIm9yXA1I

Now it's time to re-focus on the real issue of global toxification by man-made chemicals that really are screwing the planet up. Or maybe on the elite groups bankrolling the destruction...C02 = plant food.

Historical graphs show that global temperature changes first followed by a linear change in carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide changes always follow global temperature changes. Anyone have an opinion why this is true?

Global atmospheric temperature was maximum in 1998. For years 1999 through 2009 the Global atmospheric temperatures have been consistently less than global atmospheric temperatures in 1998. Anyone have any suggestions as to what this trend means?

Climategate scientist decided to average global atmospheric temperatures since year 1998. Anyone have any ideas why?

Wikipedia erased the graph of carbon dioxide plotted on the same graph with global atmospheric temperatures versus year. Plotted together one can easily determine that global atmospheric temperature always changes followed by carbon dioxide. Why not publish the graph for people to see the relationship?

Oxygen represents 21% of the atmoshpere. Nitrogen represents 78% of the atmosphere. Since 99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen, only 1% of the atmosphere is carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, solid particulate, and all other minor constituents. Anyone know how less than 0.1% of the atmosphere is a threat to human life?

Plants living consume carbon dioxide, convert and release oxygen. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide result in faster plant growth and higher plant production. One could conclude that plants a growing regulate the oxygen content at 21% consistently. Any idea why this conclusion could be very important to oxygen regulation?

A cold, frosty night always occurs on a cold, clear night. Cloud cover always averts frost. Mist spray of water properly applied will avert frost at ambient below freezing. Florida orange groves uses water spray to prevent frost damage to deligate plants. If carbon dioxide would work better than moisture at providing a warm blanket, are farmers in Florida amiss to use water mist rather than carbon dioxide to warm the plants on a cold night?

Why is carbon monoxide not considered a threat to global temperatures if carbon dioxide is such a threat?

Now that freon 12 is no longer used, doesn't the accumulated freon 12 continue to threaten global temperatures? Can the global temperature decline be a credit to the elimination of freon 12?

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Trees recycle most of the CO2 they absorb once they die and decompose. Bamboo grows quickly and can be used for building material.