0.01% of all the 247 billion trees absorb the 1.7 Billion tons of CO2 coal utilities emit..

[Mustang]

Now this may seem rather simple but please follow these numbers and tell me where I'm wrong...
Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change

• A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
• One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people.
• Tree Facts American Forests

In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2.
A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists

According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S. Tree Facts Facts About Trees

So according to my figures... 40,800,000 trees can absorb ALL the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by all the coal fired utility plants.

That means 0.01% of all the TREES in USA are absorbing the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year.

What is wrong with these figures then?

I'm not even going to respond to the stats as far as the numbers are concerned. I'll merely respond to the claim of trees as a carbon sequestration destination.

To paraphrase your OP, please follow along. Carbon-based fuel (in the form of coal and oil) has been sequestered and buried underground for millions of years. At best, a tree might be expected to hold on to the carbon for a couple of hundred years before it dies (and decays) or burns in a natural fire, or is cut down (and is burned or decays) thereby releasing the CO2 back into the air.

Consequently, trees are not much of a carbon sink, all things being equal. That's especially true considering that the carbon is being taken out of a proven secure sink (until humans get to it) and placed in a temporary location. It's like taking your money out of an underground vault and placing it in a coffee can buried in your back yard. It damn sure isn't safer there.

What is your expertise that you can spout without ANY substantiation?
I at least am giving you the sources of where I came up with the numbers... where's your sources?

I've read several books on global warming for one thing. But what I just said is obvious once people stop to think about it because it's a mathematical truth that many people haven't really thought through when they think of planting trees as a sequestration solution.

Simply put, once you take carbon out of the ground where it's been for millions of years (and would likely continue to be for millions more years if we left it there), that carbon dioxide is reintroduced into the evironment (the air). One tree is not going to take that CO2 molecule out of the atmosphere for any longer than the tree lives. If trees lived millions of years, than it would be a wash. But trees don't live for millions of years, do they? What that means is that once that particular variety of tree approaches its statistical end of life based on its general longevity (lifespan), ANOTHER tree will have to be planted to take up that same carbon. The same process would have to be repeated over and over again by subsequent generations just for the CO2 released today.

But realistically, on a planet with a growing human population which needs more and more arable land for growing food, how many trees can be planted to take up all the CO2 we are creating now, and tomorrow, and next year, only to need to continue to plant even more trees to replace the ones that die (or that we cut down)?

But the trend is just the opposite, isn't it? More and more old growth forests are being cut down, and it takes one HELL of a lot of saplings to make up for all the carbon in a 200 year old tree.

 

[g5000]

I installed bidet attachments on 2 toilets to nearly eliminate my families toilet paper use.

And increased your fresh water usage.

 

[KissMy]

I installed bidet attachments on 2 toilets to nearly eliminate my families toilet paper use.

And increased your fresh water usage.

Actually no. We use to flush once for poop & again after the paper wipe. Now we only flush once. Plus you can go longer between showers staying fresh & clean. This saves trees, fresh water, energy, water treatment, sewer treatment & waste.

 

[healthmyths]

Now this may seem rather simple but please follow these numbers and tell me where I'm wrong...
Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change

• A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
• One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people.
• Tree Facts American Forests

In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2.
A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists

According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S. Tree Facts Facts About Trees

So according to my figures... 40,800,000 trees can absorb ALL the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by all the coal fired utility plants.

That means 0.01% of all the TREES in USA are absorbing the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year.

What is wrong with these figures then?

I'm not even going to respond to the stats as far as the numbers are concerned. I'll merely respond to the claim of trees as a carbon sequestration destination.

To paraphrase your OP, please follow along. Carbon-based fuel (in the form of coal and oil) has been sequestered and buried underground for millions of years. At best, a tree might be expected to hold on to the carbon for a couple of hundred years before it dies (and decays) or burns in a natural fire, or is cut down (and is burned or decays) thereby releasing the CO2 back into the air.

Consequently, trees are not much of a carbon sink, all things being equal. That's especially true considering that the carbon is being taken out of a proven secure sink (until humans get to it) and placed in a temporary location. It's like taking your money out of an underground vault and placing it in a coffee can buried in your back yard. It damn sure isn't safer there.

What is your expertise that you can spout without ANY substantiation?
I at least am giving you the sources of where I came up with the numbers... where's your sources?

I've read several books on global warming for one thing. But what I just said is obvious once people stop to think about it because it's a mathematical truth that many people haven't really thought through when they think of planting trees as a sequestration solution.

Simply put, once you take carbon out of the ground where it's been for millions of years (and would likely continue to be for millions more years if we left it there), that carbon dioxide is reintroduced into the evironment (the air). One tree is not going to take that CO2 molecule out of the atmosphere for any longer than the tree lives. If trees lived millions of years, than it would be a wash. But trees don't live for millions of years, do they? What that means is that once that particular variety of tree approaches its statistical end of life based on its general longevity (lifespan), ANOTHER tree will have to be planted to take up that same carbon. The same process would have to be repeated over and over again by subsequent generations just for the CO2 released today.

But realistically, on a planet with a growing human population which needs more and more arable land for growing food, how many trees can be planted to take up all the CO2 we are creating now, and tomorrow, and next year, only to need to continue to plant even more trees to replace the ones that die (or that we cut down)?

But the trend is just the opposite, isn't it? More and more old growth forests are being cut down, and it takes one HELL of a lot of saplings to make up for all the carbon in a 200 year old tree.

Again... "you read several books"... wow!
Here is some real numbers ok?

For example, in 2010, Weyerhaeuser reported planting 50 million seedlings.

In theory, planting any kind of tree to produce more forest cover would absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, a genetically modified tree specimen might grow much faster than any other regular tree.
Some of these trees are already being developed in the lumber and biofuel industries. These fast-growing trees would not only be planted for those industries but they can also be planted to help absorb carbon dioxide faster than slow-growing trees.
Reforestation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

See what you are forgetting is that "TREES" are a crop! And they want to have more trees..meaning more sequestration!

 

[Mustang]

Now this may seem rather simple but please follow these numbers and tell me where I'm wrong...
Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change

• A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
• One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people.
• Tree Facts American Forests

In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2.
A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists

According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S. Tree Facts Facts About Trees

So according to my figures... 40,800,000 trees can absorb ALL the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by all the coal fired utility plants.

That means 0.01% of all the TREES in USA are absorbing the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year.

What is wrong with these figures then?

I'm not even going to respond to the stats as far as the numbers are concerned. I'll merely respond to the claim of trees as a carbon sequestration destination.

To paraphrase your OP, please follow along. Carbon-based fuel (in the form of coal and oil) has been sequestered and buried underground for millions of years. At best, a tree might be expected to hold on to the carbon for a couple of hundred years before it dies (and decays) or burns in a natural fire, or is cut down (and is burned or decays) thereby releasing the CO2 back into the air.

Consequently, trees are not much of a carbon sink, all things being equal. That's especially true considering that the carbon is being taken out of a proven secure sink (until humans get to it) and placed in a temporary location. It's like taking your money out of an underground vault and placing it in a coffee can buried in your back yard. It damn sure isn't safer there.

What is your expertise that you can spout without ANY substantiation?
I at least am giving you the sources of where I came up with the numbers... where's your sources?

I've read several books on global warming for one thing. But what I just said is obvious once people stop to think about it because it's a mathematical truth that many people haven't really thought through when they think of planting trees as a sequestration solution.

Simply put, once you take carbon out of the ground where it's been for millions of years (and would likely continue to be for millions more years if we left it there), that carbon dioxide is reintroduced into the evironment (the air). One tree is not going to take that CO2 molecule out of the atmosphere for any longer than the tree lives. If trees lived millions of years, than it would be a wash. But trees don't live for millions of years, do they? What that means is that once that particular variety of tree approaches its statistical end of life based on its general longevity (lifespan), ANOTHER tree will have to be planted to take up that same carbon. The same process would have to be repeated over and over again by subsequent generations just for the CO2 released today.

But realistically, on a planet with a growing human population which needs more and more arable land for growing food, how many trees can be planted to take up all the CO2 we are creating now, and tomorrow, and next year, only to need to continue to plant even more trees to replace the ones that die (or that we cut down)?

But the trend is just the opposite, isn't it? More and more old growth forests are being cut down, and it takes one HELL of a lot of saplings to make up for all the carbon in a 200 year old tree.

Again... "you read several books"... wow!
Here is some real numbers ok?

For example, in 2010, Weyerhaeuser reported planting 50 million seedlings.

In theory, planting any kind of tree to produce more forest cover would absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, a genetically modified tree specimen might grow much faster than any other regular tree.
Some of these trees are already being developed in the lumber and biofuel industries. These fast-growing trees would not only be planted for those industries but they can also be planted to help absorb carbon dioxide faster than slow-growing trees.
Reforestation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

See what you are forgetting is that "TREES" are a crop! And they want to have more trees..meaning more sequestration!

Divide the life of an average tree into a hundred million years. That's about how many trees you'll have to plant to take care of all the carbon dioxide molecules that one tree could absorb from burning carbon fuel.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

W

Instead of planting 39 million acres of corn to supply that worthless ethanol industry, we should turn that farm ground into forest. The benefits to the environment would far outweigh any of those alleged by the agriculture industry. Screw farmers.

Whoa! Slow down there Sparky. Let's not be putting a bunch of farmers off the family farms. Isn't there an industry in your State we can shit can instead?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

They are going to close 40% of all coal burning plants... WHY???

Where are you getting this figure from?

I was WRONG!!!! WRONG!!!
It is not 40% of all coal burning plants.
It is 40% of all electricity utility production coming from coal burning utilities.
Sorry. Again... very very wrong!
40% of all electric production is done by coal plants that EPA wants to close.

Wow! If that happens, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.

 

[Siete]

Your premise is flawed. It assumes all the pollution distributes and spreads itself amongst all the trees. In fact it's carried by the wind and to places generally east of the point of origin where there probably aren't many trees to do the absorption. Forests are situated in regions where there are few sources of industrial pollution. So their absorption ability isn't being used. At least not enough to bear out your arguement.

healthdolt is flawed which explains his premise, and his very existence on this planet ..

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I installed bidet attachments on 2 toilets to nearly eliminate my families toilet paper use.

And increased your fresh water usage.

Actually no. We use to flush once for poop & again after the paper wipe. Now we only flush once. Plus you can go longer between showers staying fresh & clean. This saves trees, fresh water, energy, water treatment, sewer treatment & waste.

Where do you attach it? Doesn't it " get in the way"?

 

[Mr. H.]

W

Instead of planting 39 million acres of corn to supply that worthless ethanol industry, we should turn that farm ground into forest. The benefits to the environment would far outweigh any of those alleged by the agriculture industry. Screw farmers.

Whoa! Slow down there Sparky. Let's not be putting a bunch of farmers off the family farms. Isn't there an industry in your State we can shit can instead?

That's MISTER Sparky to you, bub.

 

[Nyvin]

48 x 40,800,000 = 1,958,400,000 pounds

1.7 billion tons = 3,400,000,000,000 pounds

???????????????????????????

 

[KissMy]

I installed bidet attachments on 2 toilets to nearly eliminate my families toilet paper use.

And increased your fresh water usage.

Actually no. We use to flush once for poop & again after the paper wipe. Now we only flush once. Plus you can go longer between showers staying fresh & clean. This saves trees, fresh water, energy, water treatment, sewer treatment & waste.

Where do you attach it? Doesn't it " get in the way"?

It attaches between the toilet seat & the toilet. They are self cleaning & do not get in the way. Gets you way cleaner than toilet paper. No more stripes in your underwear.

This bidet is cheap & has been working flawless for me for over a year since I got it. They make some with air driers. I might try one of those if I ever replace one.

 

[saveliberty]

So some of you are postulating most trees hold their collective breath?

 

[Nyvin]

I'm serious...did the OP mistake "tons" for "pounds"????

Really?

Otherwise I really don't see how his math works....

 

[flacaltenn]

The article does have a serious math error. Actually, a 9th grader ought to have caught it -- but that is the state of public education..

Would take 70Bill trees, or about a 25% of stock in America. And the deal is -- is not as tho trees had nothing else to soak up. They are already busy absorbing the 160 Bill Tons of NATURAL carbon that cycles every years from land-based termite farts vulcanism and such.

Mustang is correct about sequestering carbon in trees. It is temporary in the long view of time. BUT --- when folks call biofuels and biomass conversion techniques --- "Zero Carbon" -- they are making the same damn assertion. Which BTW is also false.

Actually the Earth NATURALLY leaks old sequestered carbon all the time. The CO2 emitted by ocean might be millions of years old. As is the natural gas leaking from the Gulf of Mexico or melting permafrost. That's why it is still debateable whether CO2 is a leading or lagging indicator of temperature. When most of the CO2 was tied up in ICE during the Ice Ages, the temperature LED the CO2 releases most of the time.

 

[Siete]

48 x 40,800,000 = 1,958,400,000 pounds

1.7 billion tons = 3,400,000,000,000 pounds

???????????????????????????

RW math, what do you expect from a moron ?.... and healthdolt expects anyone to take him serious ? Really ? ... try seriously FUNNY and PATHETIC ...

 

[KissMy]

Yup! It will take 29% of all the trees in the USA to absorb the 1.7 billion tons of carbon emitted by coal power plants in the USA. That only leaves 71% of the trees left to absorb all the CO2 emissions from everything else.

 

[Siete]

Yup! It will take 29% of all the trees in the USA to absorb the 1.7 billion tons of carbon emitted by coal power plants in the USA. That only leaves 71% of the trees left to absorb all the CO2 emissions from everything else.

YUP another moron ... all of the trees in the US ... assuming the US is defined as GLOBAL and the US is the only country on the globe that burns coal.

 

[healthmyths]

Now this may seem rather simple but please follow these numbers and tell me where I'm wrong...
Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change

• A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
• One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people.
• Tree Facts American Forests

In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2.
A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists

According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S. Tree Facts Facts About Trees

So according to my figures... 40,800,000 trees can absorb ALL the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by all the coal fired utility plants.

That means 0.01% of all the TREES in USA are absorbing the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year.

What is wrong with these figures then?

I'm not even going to respond to the stats as far as the numbers are concerned. I'll merely respond to the claim of trees as a carbon sequestration destination.

To paraphrase your OP, please follow along. Carbon-based fuel (in the form of coal and oil) has been sequestered and buried underground for millions of years. At best, a tree might be expected to hold on to the carbon for a couple of hundred years before it dies (and decays) or burns in a natural fire, or is cut down (and is burned or decays) thereby releasing the CO2 back into the air.

Consequently, trees are not much of a carbon sink, all things being equal. That's especially true considering that the carbon is being taken out of a proven secure sink (until humans get to it) and placed in a temporary location. It's like taking your money out of an underground vault and placing it in a coffee can buried in your back yard. It damn sure isn't safer there.

What is your expertise that you can spout without ANY substantiation?
I at least am giving you the sources of where I came up with the numbers... where's your sources?

I've read several books on global warming for one thing. But what I just said is obvious once people stop to think about it because it's a mathematical truth that many people haven't really thought through when they think of planting trees as a sequestration solution.

Simply put, once you take carbon out of the ground where it's been for millions of years (and would likely continue to be for millions more years if we left it there), that carbon dioxide is reintroduced into the evironment (the air). One tree is not going to take that CO2 molecule out of the atmosphere for any longer than the tree lives. If trees lived millions of years, than it would be a wash. But trees don't live for millions of years, do they? What that means is that once that particular variety of tree approaches its statistical end of life based on its general longevity (lifespan), ANOTHER tree will have to be planted to take up that same carbon. The same process would have to be repeated over and over again by subsequent generations just for the CO2 released today.

But realistically, on a planet with a growing human population which needs more and more arable land for growing food, how many trees can be planted to take up all the CO2 we are creating now, and tomorrow, and next year, only to need to continue to plant even more trees to replace the ones that die (or that we cut down)?

But the trend is just the opposite, isn't it? More and more old growth forests are being cut down, and it takes one HELL of a lot of saplings to make up for all the carbon in a 200 year old tree.

Again... "you read several books"... wow!
Here is some real numbers ok?

For example, in 2010, Weyerhaeuser reported planting 50 million seedlings.

In theory, planting any kind of tree to produce more forest cover would absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, a genetically modified tree specimen might grow much faster than any other regular tree.
Some of these trees are already being developed in the lumber and biofuel industries. These fast-growing trees would not only be planted for those industries but they can also be planted to help absorb carbon dioxide faster than slow-growing trees.
Reforestation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

See what you are forgetting is that "TREES" are a crop! And they want to have more trees..meaning more sequestration!

Divide the life of an average tree into a hundred million years. That's about how many trees you'll have to plant to take care of all the carbon dioxide molecules that one tree could absorb from burning carbon fuel.

The facts ... where are YOUR FACTS? YOUR sources???

According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S. Tree Facts Facts About Trees

A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year
Tree Facts American Forests

Multiple 247 billion trees X 48 pounds of sequestered CO2 equals 5.9 billion tons of CO2 that trees can absorb.

In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2.
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists

That means Trees absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by all the coal plants. nearly 3 times!

 

[healthmyths]

In 2012, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,526 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Climate Change US EPA
The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day.
Are you heating the planet when you breathe
So we Americans contribute 356,000 tons of CO2 by breathing!