# Can trees actually increase Global Warming?



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

*Scientists question trees' role in global warming*

Thursday, January 12, 2006. 6:00am (AEDT)


Under the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the forest is a saint, as trees suck in carbon dioxide (CO2) as part of the natural process of respiration. 
By such thinking, if Kyoto signatories plant lots of forests, they create wonderful sponges that absorb the dangerous climate-altering gas. 
But what if trees, in addition to taking in CO2, also emit a greenhouse gas of their own? 
That scenario is sketched in a new study by European scientists, which if confirmed, would be one of the biggest upheavals in climate science for years. 
It would also inflict a serious blow to Kyoto, one of whose key pillars is the faith in "sinks", as forests are called in the treaty's jargon. 

Link






Now that would be disappointing. I just planted about 150 trees this past fall.


----------



## victor mi pro bowhunter (Feb 12, 2001)

I think they got it wrong they are allways coming up with some thing

trees been around almost since the begining of time back then the air was really warm studys show.The trees where there and the air is what it is today plus they been around for count less valcanos that do more dammage then we could do in years


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

"Let's cut all the trees, let's cut all the trees" 

Great study.:rant: Let's say that it's true. What can we do? They still have so many beneficial elements such as providing oxygen that I think that once the study is done and the money is spent nothing will come from this except a bunch of scientist looking for a new grant.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

Wildcat, it matters because a number of countries who signed the Kyoto treaty did so with the understanding that they are able to offset their CO2 emmission levels by credits for planting trees. If it is true that planting trees does not have the net effect on overall reduction of greenhouse gasses, they may have to rethink if, or how, they can achieve the levels stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

As I said with that study...if true...cut em down and outlaw planting I guesse what I'm trying to say is that benefits far out way the harm. They may have to do more to meet their emmisions...yes. But even thouth they get "credit" aren't the standards done by mesurable CO2 in the air?


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

Wildcat, what is it with you and emoticons. Is there something you were trying to say with "" that you were having trouble finding the words for?


I did not hear anyone but you say suggest cutting down all the trees. There is a _*ton *_of info on the Kyoto protocol that you can find with a simple google search, if you are really interested in the information. It is so readily available that you might even get a chance to read up a little before your next post.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

As I said Kevin I think the study itself was stupid. Hence  

From Kyoto


> The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.


The bottom line, regardless of the study, is that They will take measurements and those measurments will dictate if they need to make adjustment. I would also love to know if the study took into consideration the cooling effects of trees and how they has a postive effects or for that matter all the other positive effects of trees. 

Once again I must ask. IF this study is true what will be done with this info? Stop planting trees? That would be stupid. So if no adjustments are made then what benfit did the study have and was it money well spent or could they have been spending the funds on different research that may be much more beneficial.


I have searched and scaned Kyoto Protocal before. When Bush said he wouldn't participate it peaked my interest why? 

So I'll say again. Your right they may have to do more to reach their levels but they won't know until they take measurements and see what gains or losses they had in the past year then move forward from there, all this regardless of what the study says. The benefits of trees far outweigh the study so I say


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

WILDCATWICK said:


> As I said Kevin I think the study itself was stupid. Hence


You think that "the study" was stupid.
To better understand one of the causes of gasses, that the overwhelming bulk of the scientific community has identified as dangerous to the environment, is stupid. 



Imprison Galileo!

Again, no one at this point has made a case against trees. Nor has anyone slighted the many merits or qualities of trees. My jesting comment in my original post "Now that would be disappointing. I just planted about 150 trees this past fall." was not to be taken as serious concern that I should not have planted the trees. I am planting more this year.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

What do you call a study that's results will not be acted upon? 

I'm glad they *may* have made this discovery. Knowledge is power, but knowledge they can't be used is wasteful.

I ask again what will they do?


P.S. the emoticons, is in regards to my dissapointment on money spent on studies that can't be acted upon. It's make me feel just like the banging of the hammer on head:lol: Not directed at you in anyway, neither were the tree comments. Arbour day may be my favorite holiday!


----------

