HEY EPA maybe you should check the Forest Service

[healthmyths]

The Obama administration is pressing ahead with tough requirements for new coal-fired power plants, moving to impose for the first time strict limits on the pollution blamed for global warming.
News from The Associated Press

YET the Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Simply put the USA can absorb all the CO2 emitted PLUS could absorb another 10%~

So will the EPA check with the forest service first BEFORE destroying the coal industry as Obama said he wanted to do?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Maybe we should burn it down?

 

[Mr. H.]

...and if we replace the 39 million acres of ethanol-dedicated corn with TREES, we would remove an additional one trillion pounds of Co2 from the atmosphere while adding tens of trillions of pounds of oxygen.

 

[healthmyths]

...and if we replace the 39 million acres of ethanol-dedicated corn with TREES, we would remove an additional one trillion pounds of Co2 from the atmosphere while adding tens of trillions of pounds of oxygen.

So trees absorb more CO2 per green leaf of trees versus green corn stalk leaves?

The trees are definitely last longer then a corn stalk.. but these 39 million acres are
basically replanted each year.. and coming from Iowa I know corn and probably less then 4 months out of the year there are "green" CO2 absorbing leaves.

So that maybe a valid number i.e. CO2 absorption.

 

[Connery]

Moved to proper forum

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb ass, the landscape absorbs more CO2 than it emitts. However, the burning of fossil fuels emitts far more CO2 than the landscrape absorbs. You seem to be incapable of reading anything and understanding what it is saying.

 

[Old Rocks]

...and if we replace the 39 million acres of ethanol-dedicated corn with TREES, we would remove an additional one trillion pounds of Co2 from the atmosphere while adding tens of trillions of pounds of oxygen.

The use of corn for fuel ethenol is a loser all the way around. Unless, of course, you happen to be a corperate farmer. Far better is the use of algea and forest waste to create ethanol or a hydrocarbon similiar to diesel for the use of fuel. The algea can be grown on the sewage of our big cities, and the cellalose waste from logging and tree trimming in the cities.

 

[healthmyths]

Dumb ass, the landscape absorbs more CO2 than it emitts. However, the burning of fossil fuels emitts far more CO2 than the landscrape absorbs. You seem to be incapable of reading anything and understanding what it is saying.

OK I'll go slow for you Old Rocks!!

The US Forest services says and I quote them directly ... SOMETHING YOU should learn to do BEFORE YOU write and show what a fool you are!!!

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Simply put the USA can absorb all the CO2 emitted PLUS could absorb another 10%~

 

[ScienceRocks]

My plan is to simply plant 10,000,000 tree's to suck it up.

 

[healthmyths]

...and if we replace the 39 million acres of ethanol-dedicated corn with TREES, we would remove an additional one trillion pounds of Co2 from the atmosphere while adding tens of trillions of pounds of oxygen.

The use of corn for fuel ethenol is a loser all the way around. Unless, of course, you happen to be a corperate farmer. Far better is the use of algea and forest waste to create ethanol or a hydrocarbon similiar to diesel for the use of fuel. The algea can be grown on the sewage of our big cities, and the cellalose waste from logging and tree trimming in the cities.

GEEZ OLD ROCKS ... don't you know when you make these wild eyed totally unsubstantiated comments people like me will check out your stupidity???

Zimba took part in the study. He says “as much as 3000 liters of water” are required to produce a single liter of fuel when algae growers use open pond systems in arid environments.
The Downside of Using Algae as a Biofuel | StateImpact Texas

So to help you metric challenged ..
3,000 liters of water is equal to 792.5 gallons of water or 18 BARRELS of water... to make 1/2 gallon of fuel.
Liter Conversion Chart (Capacity and Volume Converter, Metric)

FACT: Gas used in the USA...
In 2011, the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons (or 3.19 billion barrels) of gasoline, a daily average of about 367.08 million gallons (8.74 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.38 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007.
How much gasoline does the United States consume? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

So OLD rocks your guess about hey let's use ALGAE (NOT ALGEA!!!)...
how much water to replace the 134 billions of gas??

106 quadrillion gallons of pond water???
46.8 trillion gallons of water are consumed in the United States per year.

To replace 134 billion gallons of gas with 134 billion gallons of fuel from algae will require 226% MORE
water use then what the USA uses in one year.

 

[healthmyths]

Dumb ass, the landscape absorbs more CO2 than it emitts. However, the burning of fossil fuels emitts far more CO2 than the landscrape absorbs. You seem to be incapable of reading anything and understanding what it is saying.

So explain then when this statement is made by :
the Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Simply put the USA can absorb all the CO2 emitted PLUS could absorb another 10%~

I got the impression the Forest Service stated clearly"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits." THIS INCLUDES the CO2 "the burning of fossil fuels emitts"(I left your spelling just to point your total ignorance in paying attention to the little dotted red line "............." under your obvious laziness in ignoring the built in spell checker!
Anytime I see the dotted line I am amazed at the laziness of people like YOU! And it is a very good sign of lazy thinking also which you evidence by ALSO never documenting any of your wild ass comments!

 

[RollingThunder]

Dumb ass, the landscape absorbs more CO2 than it emitts. However, the burning of fossil fuels emitts far more CO2 than the landscrape absorbs. You seem to be incapable of reading anything and understanding what it is saying.

So explain then when this statement is made by :
the Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it [the landscape] sequesters more carbon than it [the landscape] emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Simply put the USA can absorb all the CO2 emitted PLUS could absorb another 10%~

I got the impression the Forest Service stated clearly"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits." THIS INCLUDES the CO2 "the burning of fossil fuels emitts"(I left your spelling just to point your total ignorance in paying attention to the little dotted red line "............." under your obvious laziness in ignoring the built in spell checker!
Anytime I see the dotted line I am amazed at the laziness of people like YOU! And it is a very good sign of lazy thinking also which you evidence by ALSO never documenting any of your wild ass comments!

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it [referring to the "landscape"] sequesters more carbon than it [referring to the "landscape"] emits."

"This [sequestration by the "landscape"] offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions."

"I got the impression the Forest Service stated clearly"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits." THIS INCLUDES the CO2 "the burning of fossil fuels emits"."

Wow, you have got to be one of the most retarded denier cult nutjobs on this forum, HurlingMyths. You can't comprehend simple English the first time you read it and then, when your mistaken understanding of the material you're quoting is pointed out to you, you still can't comprehend it. You actually repeat your moronic misinterpretation of what was clearly stated - 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors - by insisting that: "THIS INCLUDES the CO2 the burning of fossil fuels emits". You are such a frigging idiot, it is pretty hilarious to watch you in action.

 

[TheOldSchool]

...and if we replace the 39 million acres of ethanol-dedicated corn with TREES, we would remove an additional one trillion pounds of Co2 from the atmosphere while adding tens of trillions of pounds of oxygen.

How the ethanol fraud continues I'll never know

 

[RollingThunder]

...and if we replace the 39 million acres of ethanol-dedicated corn with TREES, we would remove an additional one trillion pounds of Co2 from the atmosphere while adding tens of trillions of pounds of oxygen.

How the ethanol fraud continues I'll never know

The corn-ethanol fraud was a pork-barrel scam devised by the right wing congressmen from the corn belt states in the American mid-west. Corn-ethanol is a net CO2 emitter and just hurts the real efforts in America to reduce our CO2 emissions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dumb ass, the landscape absorbs more CO2 than it emitts. However, the burning of fossil fuels emitts far more CO2 than the landscrape absorbs. You seem to be incapable of reading anything and understanding what it is saying.

Really really pains me to admit it -- but GoldiRocks is correct for once. At least as I read the claim..

NET NATURAL exchange on the land surface of the CONUS is a CO2 sink..
It is also widely accepted the Oceans are still "net natural" sinks.
In fact a large part of our emissions ARE sequestered by the land and ocean already.

In that light -- HealthMyths has a point. NOT ALL our emissions end up adding to the atmos. But some does.. (anywhere from 40 to 70%)

Natural sources of GHGases come from just running rivers, termites, rotting vegetation, nat gas vents, wildlife, ect.

HOWEVER --- man emits about 1/8 of the natural land emissions. Emissions are fungible because the atmos. and nature don't know a natural CO2 molecule from a man-caused one. I say kill the termites, empty the leaking nat gas sites via drilling, and call it even.

 

[RollingThunder]

Dumb ass, the landscape absorbs more CO2 than it emitts. However, the burning of fossil fuels emitts far more CO2 than the landscrape absorbs. You seem to be incapable of reading anything and understanding what it is saying.

Really really pains me to admit it -- but GoldiRocks is correct for once. At least as I read the claim..

NET NATURAL exchange on the land surface of the CONUS is a CO2 sink..
It is also widely accepted the Oceans are still "net natural" sinks.
In fact a large part of our emissions ARE sequestered by the land and ocean already.

Currently about 50% according to some research published last year, but that level of sequestration can't last, and a good deal of the carbon that has been absorbed will eventually resurface and accelerate the warming even further..

Earth still absorbing CO2 even as emissions rise, says new CU-led study
University of Colorado Boulder
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science (CIRES)
August 1, 2012
(excerpts)
Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them, according to a surprising new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder. The study, led by CU-Boulder postdoctoral researcher Ashley Ballantyne, looked at global CO2 emissions reports from the past 50 years and compared them with rising levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere during that time, primarily because of fossil fuel burning. The results showed that while CO2 emissions had quadrupled, natural carbon “sinks” that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years, lessening the warming impacts on Earth’s climate. “What we are seeing is that the Earth continues to do the heavy lifting by taking up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, even while humans have done very little to reduce carbon emissions,” said Ballantyne. “How long this will continue, we don’t know.” A paper on the subject will be published in the Aug. 2 issue of Nature. Co-authors on the study include CU-Boulder Professor Jim White, CU-Boulder doctoral student Caroline Alden and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists John Miller and Pieter Tans. Miller also is a research associate at the CU-headquartered Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

According to Alden, the trend of sinks gulping atmospheric carbon cannot continue indefinitely. “It’s not a question of whether or not natural sinks will slow their uptake of carbon, but when,” she said. “We’re already seeing climate change happen despite the fact that only half of fossil fuel emissions stay in the atmosphere while the other half is drawn down by the land biosphere and oceans,” Alden said. “If natural sinks saturate as models predict, the impact of human emissions on atmospheric CO2 will double.” Ballantyne said recent studies by others have suggested carbon sinks were declining in some areas of the globe, including parts of the Southern Hemisphere and portions of the world’s oceans. “When carbon sinks become carbon sources, it will be a very critical time for Earth,” said Ballantyne. “We don’t see any evidence of that yet, but it’s certainly something we should be looking for.” “It is important to understand that CO2 sinks are not really sinks, in the sense that the extra carbon is still present in Earth’s vegetation, soils and the ocean,” said NOAA’s Tans. “It hasn’t disappeared. What we really are seeing is a global carbon system that has been pushed out of equilibrium by the human burning of fossil fuels.” “The good news is that today, nature is helping us out,” said White also a professor in CU’s geological sciences department. “The bad news is that none of us think nature is going to keep helping us out indefinitely. When the time comes that these carbon sinks are no longer taking up carbon, there is going to be a big price to pay.”

In that light -- HealthMyths has a point.

Only the one on top of his head. Certainly not in his OP.

NOT ALL our emissions end up adding to the atmos.

Something climate scientists have been saying for decades. That's not a positive thing though, even if it has served to temporarily slow the global warming trend to about half of what it would been if so much of mankind's carbon emissions hadn't been absorbed by the natural sinks. At least a third of mankind's CO2 emissions have been absorbed by the oceans and that extra CO2 is making the oceans more acidic which threatens the marine food chain. Moreover as the oceans continue to warm up, they will start to emit more CO2 than they can absorb, further accelerating global warming and climate changes.

HOWEVER --- man emits about 1/8 of the natural land emissions. Emissions are fungible because the atmos. and nature don't know a natural CO2 molecule from a man-caused one. I say kill the termites, empty the leaking nat gas sites via drilling, and call it even.

I see you're still having trouble comprehending the fact that natural emissions of CO2 are balanced out by the natural carbon sinks in a homeostatic process that has endured for millions of years. It is the enormous quantities of un-natural emissions that come from digging up and burning millions of years of natural carbon sequestration stored as 'fossil fuels', which has so extremely quickly raised atmospheric CO2 levels by over 40% (and still climbing), and which is causing the very abrupt warming trend and the consequent rapid climate changes the Earth is experiencing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb ass, the landscape absorbs more CO2 than it emitts. However, the burning of fossil fuels emitts far more CO2 than the landscrape absorbs. You seem to be incapable of reading anything and understanding what it is saying.

Really really pains me to admit it -- but GoldiRocks is correct for once. At least as I read the claim..

NET NATURAL exchange on the land surface of the CONUS is a CO2 sink..
It is also widely accepted the Oceans are still "net natural" sinks.
In fact a large part of our emissions ARE sequestered by the land and ocean already.

In that light -- HealthMyths has a point. NOT ALL our emissions end up adding to the atmos. But some does.. (anywhere from 40 to 70%)

Natural sources of GHGases come from just running rivers, termites, rotting vegetation, nat gas vents, wildlife, ect.

HOWEVER --- man emits about 1/8 of the natural land emissions. Emissions are fungible because the atmos. and nature don't know a natural CO2 molecule from a man-caused one. I say kill the termites, empty the leaking nat gas sites via drilling, and call it even.

However, because of the differance in the balance of the isotopes of carbon in natural CO2 and emissions from fossil fuel burning, we know what nature does not.

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb ass, the landscape absorbs more CO2 than it emitts. However, the burning of fossil fuels emitts far more CO2 than the landscrape absorbs. You seem to be incapable of reading anything and understanding what it is saying.

OK I'll go slow for you Old Rocks!!

The US Forest services says and I quote them directly ... SOMETHING YOU should learn to do BEFORE YOU write and show what a fool you are!!!

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Simply put the USA can absorb all the CO2 emitted PLUS could absorb another 10%~

Sheesh. Dumb-de-dumb dumb.

 

[skookerasbil]

Bah Bah Booey

Why Renewables Can't Solve Europe's Energy Crisis | ZeroHedge

 

[healthmyths]

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it [referring to the "landscape"] sequesters more carbon than it [referring to the "landscape"] emits."

"This [sequestration by the "landscape"] offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions."

"I got the impression the Forest Service stated clearly"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits." THIS INCLUDES the CO2 "the burning of fossil fuels emits"."

Wow, you have got to be one of the most retarded denier cult nutjobs on this forum, HurlingMyths. You can't comprehend simple English the first time you read it and then, when your mistaken understanding of the material you're quoting is pointed out to you, you still can't comprehend it. You actually repeat your moronic misinterpretation of what was clearly stated - 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors - by insisting that: "THIS INCLUDES the CO2 the burning of fossil fuels emits". You are such a frigging idiot, it is pretty hilarious to watch you in action.

Thank you for pointing out that the Forest Service evidently ignored the following FACTS!!!

Globally, there are estimated to be 3.04 trillion trees. This is according to a study published in the journal Nature.
3,040,000,000,000 trees each absorbing 48 lbs of C02 is hmmm...

• How Many Trees Are In The World? (2021 Updated List)
• How Many Trees Are in The World?(2021 New data)

3,040,000,000,000 trees times 48 lbs equals 145,920,000,000,000 lbs or 72,960,000,000 tons.

So if trees CAN absorb 72.96 Billion tons of CO2... and
The world emitted: 36.40 Billion tons of CO2 in 2021...

So after absorbing all the 36.4 Billion tons of CO2 emitted by the world,
that leaves 36.560 billion tons of CO2 that could be absorbed!

• Annual CO2 emissions worldwide 1940-2020 | Statista

Could Atmosphere CO2 Levels be Reduced by Planting Trees?

Could planting trees make enough difference to impact increased CO2 levels in our atmosphere? The idea seems simple enough, but probably not. Here's why.

www.co2meter.com

How Many Trees Are in The World?(2021 New data)
So some one doesn't know simple math, i.e. Forest Service??

• Total trees on earth.. 3.04 trillion trees absorbing
• 48 lbs of CO2 per tree per year or over
• 72.96 billion tons of CO2 absorbed.
• Total CO2 emitted in the world: 36.40 billion tons.
• That means ALL the CO2 the world emits is absorbed PLUS an additional 36.560 billion of CO2!

Simple math folks that evidently the Forest Service doesn't understand.