Is reducing carbon emissions futile without mass reforestation?
We shouldn’t be so concerned about cutting trees, but the greenies have created a lot of pulp-fiction. Countries with pulp and paper industries have strict laws and binding agreements on forest management and sustainability, so things aren’t at all like they used to be. Today’s reforestation usually results in more trees being planted than harvested, but activists don’t want you to know this. There’s evidence that some of the world’s deserts were once fertile, just as Greenland and the arctic were. It was natural climate change that made them what they are today, so it follows that fluctuations in CO2 levels are normal. CO2 levels and temperatures have been higher and lower in the past than they are now.
Mass reforestation will do more harm than good! NO NO you say!!! Well, do some research and you will discover that 95% of the effect of all greenhouse gas is the result of H2O. Plant billions of trees and you will be feeding tens of trillions of new gallons of H2O into the atmosphere every day. Yeah, those trees will remove some CO2……. for awhile… but when the tree dies, the CO2 is released back into the environment. As you think about this realize that CO2 is only 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere. That is a very small amount. To visualize this, consider a room with 10,000 tennis balls to represent the environment. If 4/100 % of those are CO2 tennis balls, there would be only 4 CO2 balls in the room. And, at most, only 1 of those would have been CO2 added by man’s use of fossil fuels. H2O however, at 2.5%, would be represented by 250 tennis balls. This matters a lot because H2O and Co2 both absorb the same bandwidths of reflected Infrared Energy in 2 of 3 spectra which Co2
