Cut Down The Trees...but Grow Them Faster?

[ranperij 0]

Well, this is really more of a joke that's between my friends and ex-English teacher, but it does make some sense.Right, we all know of Al Gore and global warming, and of the deforestation of the world and the growing levels of greenhouse gases and all that jazz. Well, my friends and class in general were discussing and joking about it, when I thought of the simple idea of making tress grow faster, and just planting more and more of them.We (humanity) already (well, we're supposed to) plant more then one seed for every tree cut down, but that doesn't seem to be working, and it seems to be taking too long. If we could accelerate the growth of trees until they reached full maturity (and therefore took the greatest amount of gases from the atmosphere), wouldn't that solve so many problems?

[dre 0]

Oxygen was one of the gases that contributed to the cooling of the Earth. Trees make oxygen. More trees = more oxygen. More oxygen = cooler temps. So one could argue less trees = more CO2 + less oxygen = hotter temps.

Edited January 20, 2008 by dre (see edit history)

[Thingcubed 0]

Granted, trees are an integral part of the Earth's ecosystem, but I don't think that genetically (or otherwise) inducing them to grow faster would be a good idea. Even ignoring all the problems attempting to do that could create (if genetically) or the energy required to speed their growth in another matter. As far as oxygen goes, most of it doesn't come from trees anyways. The majority of the Earth's oxygen comes from marine plants i.e. algae.

[csp4.0 1]

But what if we could make 'tree farms'? We can put trees in giant greenhouses in places like the Siberian plains. Specialized membranes would only allow Carbon dioxide and small amounts of oxygen in and the trees would suck up that carbon dioxide and release oxygen, then the oxygen is released back into the world. This would be a very good idea for places where trees don't normally grow. And what if we build giant atmospheric scrubbers that suck up the carbon dioxide? The carbon dioxide inside the scrubbers would then be placed into tree farms where the carbon dioxide is then released converting it to Oxygen.We'd have to think about the worst possible circumstance - the human race slowly dying because of too much carbon dioxide in the air... we have to do all we can to stop this from happening...

[anachro 0]

it's a witty plan, and I acknowladge that if someone could do it than al gore would have to shutup and deal, but that would create another problem.

 

If we planted MORE trees than we are now and they grew faster than we'd have to cut them faster, which to some extent could be a problem (all the materials needed to make axes and other tools and maintaining them ); besides that problem, if we couldn't cut them down fast enough we'd be faced with the reverse Global Cooling; Also we'd have to worry about the offspring of these super-trees growing faster and faster and blah blah blah.

 

So, in theory it would be better to keep the planting rate the same, and just make them grow fast enough until they are equal with rates,

[safe.as.haz 0]

Al Gore is a hero in my book. But surely with that many trees we would still get massive forest fires which is a major factor in global warming??so no matter how fast we grow them, the faster global warming actually impacts the earth?I mean, with all these factors and after watching "an inconvenient truth" I have thought about what if we tried to counter act such a thing....but since the beginning of time.. life has found a way.. one way or another..I mean, there are even theories out there like with good timing, a volcano explosion big enough, could counter act global warming, cool down everything or worse send us into another ice age.In my theory global warming increasing this much in the last 30 years is so dangerous and stupid of us to be messing with nature's way and cause so much pollution too the atmosphere but what if it actually saves us from another ice age..

[heavensounds 0]

As far as I know there are trees somewhere in Italy that are planted only to be cutted down in the near future, because they are some special sort of trees that grow extremely fast! I think that using that sort of trees or even better (in the sense of fast growth) would make a difference...

[dre 0]

But surely with that many trees we would still get massive forest fires which is a major factor in global warming??so no matter how fast we grow them, the faster global warming actually impacts the earth?

Before there was massive deforestation, forests seemed to do fine. Besides, what causes those fires in the first place?

forest fires which is a major factor in global warming??

No.

so no matter how fast we grow them, the faster global warming actually impacts the earth?

Not really, I said:

Oxygen was one of the gases that contributed to the cooling of the Earth. Trees make oxygen. More trees = more oxygen. More oxygen = cooler temps. So one could argue less trees = more CO2 + less oxygen = hotter temps.

So according to that simple equation, more trees would make less CO2 and make more O2 = lower temps. I'm not proposing major tree overgrowth, but instead to bring trees nearer to natural amounts.

In my theory global warming increasing this much in the last 30 years is so dangerous and stupid of us to be messing with nature's way and cause so much pollution too the atmosphere but what if it actually saves us from another ice age

It's a regular pattern, and to try to stop it would be foolish. Edited January 21, 2008 by dre (see edit history)

[adriantc 0]

I have watched "An Inconvenient Truth" recently and I must say I have been impressed by who big our problem is (becoming). As a result I have decided to change (as much I can) my lifestyle with emphasis on turning off the lights and being much more careful with using paper. I don't know how much I will be able to resist, but it is the first time I actually took some action rather then complain about global warming and doing nothing.
Grow trees faster... It may actually be possible with the development of genetic manipulation, but I'm not sure it will ever compensate (in terms of amount) to what we cut down. A normal tree takes a decade or two to grow enough to make a difference in Oxygen/CO2 ratio. Lowering that 10 times (don't think that is possible even with genetic modifications and great growing conditions) is still not near enough. the horrible truth is that it is far more easier to destroy something then actually building it. Man now has the tools (and the need) to cut a forest that has grown in (most cases) hundreds of years, if not thousands in 1 year maybe even less.
More important this is something that requires time, time which unfortunately we no longer have. On the long term and with a drastic reduction in deforestation it could be a potential solution.

PS: Regarding the global warming issue I have found a video on youtube that is really interesting. Some of you may have already seen it... I like it because he putsit so plain and simply. No need for fancy demonstrations, just a simple game with odds! CLICK HERE!

[techclave 0]

your idea is good and i am sure that everybody will agree to that but the problem how exactly are to planning to make it grow faster. ?what is technology that you are going to use to make tham grow faster?if it is possible then i think everybody would have already started doing it. but i don't think that there is any better way for that.

[Forbez 0]

I don't see why this couldn't work. But you've got to consider that trees get cut down to make space for shops, malls, houses entire cities built on top of where use to be woodlands. There are far to many people and not enough space, we have to continously build more and more. They'll find a different solution to curing global warming, but to be honest with you all. The effects of global warming probably won't effect us, or the next generation but probably the generation after that.

[dre 0]

Grow trees faster... It may actually be possible with the development of genetic manipulation, but I'm not sure it will ever compensate (in terms of amount) to what we cut down. A normal tree takes a decade or two to grow enough to make a difference in Oxygen/CO2 ratio. Lowering that 10 times (don't think that is possible even with genetic modifications and great growing conditions) is still not near enough.

Do you (or anybody) then have a better idea to do this in less time? Don't kid yourself, if the problem is so big then the solution will take about the same time to reverse it.

what is technology that you are going to use to make tham grow faster?

It really doesn't matter how fast the trees grow, as long as they are actually being grown. Although speed would help, it's quantity that counts.

I don't see why this couldn't work. But you've got to consider that trees get cut down to make space for shops, malls, houses entire cities built on top of where use to be woodlands. There are far to many people and not enough space, we have to continously build more and more.

That's gonna change since energy will become a lot more expensive and being farther away from cities would be economically stupid. Edited January 26, 2008 by dre (see edit history)

[iGuest 3]

Think about this

Cut Down The Trees...but Grow Them Faster?

 

Taking various data from a few wombat studies a gentlemen did on solely his use of a single man of toilet paper used in his home...On average he used 49 sheets of toilet paper in one year.

 

 

 

Obviously lets take into account that his is a lower number of toilet paper usage. In reguards, it takes 48 full grown trees to make roughly 500 rolls of toilet paper. So using that number it takes about 1/10th of an adult grown paper tree to produce 10 rolls of toilet paper. Now...With that said...Lets say every american in the united states, roughly 300+ million, uses at the very least 49 rolls of toilet paper a year. That is 5 trees a person.

 

 

 

And lets shoot low on the population count (july 2007 census puts you.S. Population at 301,139,947 est.), saying there is only 300 million americans using the lowest- 49 rolls of toilet paper a year = 5 trees. So 300 million americans using 5 trees a year of toilet paper would equate to 1.5 billion trees (roughly, give or take a few million.) To keep up with just toilet paper usage alone you have to plant trees and grow them to match that 1.5 billion tree usage a year.

 

 

 

Wrap your mind around that, and tell us america doesn't have a problem with tree usage. And everyone wonders why 60 percent of the cultures in the middle east use their hand to whipe their *bottom* and then was their hand. Thats why they have all the money, not because of oil you idiots!

 

 

 

-reply by Zach

[DeM0nFiRe 0]

Oxygen was one of the gases that contributed to the cooling of the Earth. Trees make oxygen. More trees = more oxygen. More oxygen = cooler temps. So one could argue less trees = more CO2 + less oxygen = hotter temps.

What? Do you know what the order of events is supposed to be for the next ice age (if it does happen) ? It is supposed to get hotter first so that the ice at the north and south poles melt and raise the global water level. this will change the jet streams in such a way that the temperate regions of the world no longer get the warmth they used to from the equatorials seas and the temperate regions become a whole lot less temperate. the raised water levels will freeze and walah! Your own, true to life Ice Age. Less trees means less CO2 which means the Ozone layer that reflects a lot of the suns heat is gone, so temperatures will rise. But these higher temperatures melt the ice caps and start the whole process.

[Dagoth Nereviar 0]

But what if we could make 'tree farms'? We can put trees in giant greenhouses in places like the Siberian plains. Specialized membranes would only allow Carbon dioxide and small amounts of oxygen in and the trees would suck up that carbon dioxide and release oxygen, then the oxygen is released back into the world. This would be a very good idea for places where trees don't normally grow. And what if we build giant atmospheric scrubbers that suck up the carbon dioxide? The carbon dioxide inside the scrubbers would then be placed into tree farms where the carbon dioxide is then released converting it to Oxygen.
We'd have to think about the worst possible circumstance - the human race slowly dying because of too much carbon dioxide in the air... we have to do all we can to stop this from happening...

The CO2 would only be scrubbed up in certain places though wouldnt it? I mean the places that there arent many trees tend to also be the places that have the lowest CO2 emissions. ie rural as hell parts of africa. People are in way too much poverty to be worrying about their SUV gas prices.

A big patch of trees isn't going to help unless we do it everywhere in the world. That's the same problem as trying to cut CO2 emissions in the first place. Jackass countries aren't even trying to cut down on CO2. I doubt they'll do this either. Taking up huge amounts of their driveways just to save the planet.