In the News II

Quote: GenoDRPh

It is equally sad that we're planting 5 billion trees a year, but cutting down 15 billion trees a year.

So just over 1 tree per person per year. Solution is to free up the economies of poor countries so they create wealth which will help reforesting same as it did in the USA.

Quote: AZDuffman

So just over 1 tree per person per year. Solution is to free up the economies of poor countries so they create wealth which will help reforesting same as it did in the USA.

You'll get no argument from me if we do it the correct way.

Quote: GenoDRPh

We makes nature's job a lot tougher when we we pump CO2 into the atmosphere AND cut down entire forests. Again, you argue best when you argue my point.,

If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, there is no need to change anything, since more plants grow and sequester carbon.

If we keep burning fossil fuels, all the deserts on Earth can be replenished with plants and they in turn will sequester more carbon.


If you have deserts in your country, keep burning coal.

Eventually, the rain patterns will change and green the deserts.

Then grow food there.


Carbon-dioxide is plant food.

If the carbon-dioxide level is still increasing after clear-cutting forests, then we can clear more land.

So Biden has it backwards.

But he's doing good since he's 80.

Just don't do anything he says, except build the border.

----------------------------

Watch: Biden Actually Says 'Global Warming is More Frightening Than Nuclear War' While in China's Backyard

September 11, 2023
.
.
.
Biden was arguing that it was important to keep less-developed countries from clear-cutting forests that serve as “carbon sinks,” removing carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.
.
.
.
https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-biden-actually-says-global-warming-frightening-nuclear-war-chinas-backyard/

----------------------------

Quote: DoubleGold

If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, there is no need to change anything, since more plants grow and sequester carbon.

If we keep burning fossil fuels, all the deserts on Earth can be replenished with plants and they in turn will sequester more carbon.


If you have deserts in your country, keep burning coal.

Eventually, the rain patterns will change and green the deserts.

Then grow food there.


Carbon-dioxide is plant food.

You can't be serious, are you? I mean, nobody's that foolish, expect Vivek.

Quote: GenoDRPh

You can't be serious, are you? I mean, nobody's that foolish, expect Vivek.

Apparently some people ARE that foolish.

Quote: GenoDRPh

You can't be serious, are you? I mean, nobody's that foolish, expect Vivek.

Do you agree carbon-dioxide is plant food?

Quote: DoubleGold

Do you agree carbon-dioxide is plant food?

I agree the statement "carbon dioxide is plant food" is a foolish and simplistic and completely inaccurate way of stating the current state.

Quote: DoubleGold

Do you agree carbon-dioxide is plant food?

I don’t think it would qualify as ‘food’. A better way to phrase it is extremely low levels of carbon dioxide are used by plants in the process of photosynthesis. Sort of like how you wouldn’t call oxygen ‘people food’.

I don’t know if higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide lead to healthier plants. My guess would be not. But that’s just a guess.

Quote: GenoDRPh

I agree the statement "carbon dioxide is plant food" is a foolish and simplistic and completely inaccurate way of stating the current state.

Do you agree a person believing that atmospheric levels of carbon-dioxide should be decreased, is an enemy to plants?