Why do I not hear people say that planting trees is not a valid solution to climate change / CO2 conversion ?
Plankton, algae and diatoms will or could save us, have until now performed an indispensable part of Earth system balance but are now severely compromised so I’m afraid the idea of oceanic assistance is a non-starter. I doubt either at this point in time the suggestion ‘plant trees in northern regions’ ie the UK will do much good as a valid solution to C02 conversion. Those nearer the Equator will I hope help, they keep their leaves all year round I think, but increasing desertification and alteration of previously established ‘steady state’ weather systems that are now no longer dependable, I fear are in flux. So time to get tough with the robber barons, the rapists of the Rain Forest, the nasty above the law types that scramble to make money from Rain Forest and its destruction.
Trees might be a problem in that we haven’t the time to wait for their growth, nor their withdrawl from participating in CO2 conversion once methane hits.
Heres my reasons that the much bandied ‘planting trees to save the planet’ is hollow, a sacrificial fix-all and I fear will not work…
- here uk trees are without leaves half the year.
- trees do not rise to counter the effects of increasing C02 … they will fail.
- changing weather patterns (prob fr the worst) means most trees will be pissed off, drought etc they will fail.
Which means we are stuck with I assume conifererous plantations. I do also hope we can get planting schemes and Local Authorities to work away from their beloved Rowan, near a blight to my mind and the beloved oak is so often overlooked. The time-frame in using trees, even fast-browth conifers as generally supposed is unworkable for the task in hand. Nice idea but it trips up on itself upon examination. Therefore we need technological carbon capture.
Lately on bbc radio news theres lots of examination of the numbers of trees to be planted as incorporated in ‘election pledges’ in the run-up to the election, such numbers are quite worthless at this stage and not worth the airtime, only the results will matter five and ten years from now and we know fine well it will be a fraction of the lowest contender. I think perhaps that is what they were explaining, the nonsense pledges peddled as ‘could be’ reality. Look at the idiocy of agricultural policy when farmers were paid to take trees out and bycatch at sea was rendered useless and dumped or used as landfill. We seem to be very poor at managing things, of arriving at common-sense practical solutions, of properly husbanding the Earth. However in bbc radio news they have done fine effort at de-bunking the untrue nonsense for instance from Sajid Javid re homeless / rough sleeping from a few days ago. The prog ‘More or Less’ this morning 10th Dec 2019 at 0900 bbc r4 put it well, Javid was talking deliberate nonsense.
Part of a workable solution has to be quite drastic universal population control, it will happen anyway but better do it in a controlled, accepted manner (contraception) than the screaming and lamentation of an unwanted end to nine tenths of the Earths human passengers. A little rubber bag will save us.
climate-change-briefing 