Their Bark Is Worse For Our Blight 5

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   dirtchik Posted 3:28 am
   10 Aug 2007

   Not an excuse to cutWhile it's no big surprise that ONLY planting trees isn't going to save us from the clmate cunundrum we've created, my concern is that forest management agencies will use this type of research as an excuse to clear cut forest.  This study is NOT saying trees have no effect in climate modulation.  It's saying trees can't sequester all the carbon people are emitting.  Once again we are told that we have to reduce our emissions.

   Permalink

2. 

   Tree Hugster Posted 9:22 am
   10 Aug 2007

   Misleading articleLimitations on tree growth due to nutrients and water, rather than amount of CO2, is not an earthshaking finding. What surprises me, is Grist's conclusion that tree's aren't worth embracing, and the bark is worse for our plight? Grist-You've drawn the wrong conclusion. Trees do sequester CO2.  More trees equal more sequestration.
    

   Permalink

3. 

   Mikhail Posted 1:19 am
   12 Aug 2007

   trees and carbonThe article is misleading as it puts the wrong and harmful spin on the results of research.
   The results just say that the EXISTING trees are not going to bulk up under high CO2 as if they were on steroids. Well, that could be expected.
   The natural conclusion, then, should be that we need MORE trees to do the job, not rely on the existing ones. After all, trees do absorb CO2, somebody just has to plant them. What else remains to do, wait for Godot?
   What we need is a massive tree planting movement in the US and other countries. Look at vast tracts of suburban space with (chemically) manicured lawns and few trees. If these people planted 10-15 spruce or maple trees each, it would be a step forward. They would even end up saving on air conditioning..
   Mikhail

   Permalink

4. 

   Christine2007 Posted 1:56 am
   16 Aug 2007

   Trees, Carbon and Global WarmingI agree that the conclusions reached by the study are misleading.  It also seems to me that the basic methodology of the study is flawed - I would be interested in the opinions of scientists on this.  For example, why only pine trees?  They certainly wouldn't be my first choice - I would at least want to plant a variety of trees to see which ones would absorb the most CO2.  Also, what about trees planted in areas that naturally receive a lot of rainwater, and that are planted with lots of natural fertilizer?  The study does acknowledge that when these elements are present, these trees do absorb greater quantities of carbon dioxide.

   Permalink

5. 

   Jwirwin Posted 1:34 am
   18 Aug 2007

   Trees & CO2Let's start at the beginning.  How impartial is Duke University?  Why think about making conclusions based on studies of ONE species of tree.  
   I agree that a forest with all its diversification is what should be studied & I have no doubt it would absorb lots of CO2.
   Lets plant more trees and bushes and green some deserts!
   John from Pequea

   Permalink