Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,729,004 times
Reputation: 20050
year 2037 worlds people planting record amounts of carbon scrubbing trees.. AGW crowds hit the streets complaining that man is the cause of to much carbon reduction in the earths atmosphere..
What part of this did you not understand? "Carbon dioxide emissions help tropical rainforests grow faster: "
So does this mean developing countries shouldn't be cutting down the rain forests to help their growing economies? Sounds like the OP is pushing a liberal agenda or something by trying to deny other countries capitalism.
This type of thread is typical of the denier carnival in that some don't see their own contradictions from thread to thread. Go on any other denier thread and you will see posts from denier clowns how man can not possibly effect the global environment, but then they post a thread which clearly shows that man made CO2 is real and effecting the global environment by increasing rain forest growth! Talk about schizophrenia.
I am also glad to see that the OP acknowledges that rain forests play a role in slowing global warming, that man made CO2 is affecting the global environment, that saving the rain forests and slowing deforestation should be made a priority and that the rain forest plays a critical role in regulating the global environment. Only problem is that the link states that the rain forests only absorb 30 percent of man made CO2 emissions which begs the question what happens to the other 70%? Could it result in ocean acidification and global warming? Even the scarecrow knows the answer is yes.
So does this mean developing countries shouldn't be cutting down the rain forests to help their growing economies? Sounds like the OP is pushing a liberal agenda or something by trying to deny other countries capitalism.
I am a big environmentalist and oppose destruction of our environment including rain forests. Label it "liberal" if you want.
I don't think capitalism has to be sacrificed in order to save rain forests.
It's always a red flag when someone posts an article about what "NASA" states, here is what I believe is the entire article they are referencing. Yes the growth rate in the Tropics is faster but to come to the conclusion that we need more C02 to protect the atmosphere because it increases tree growth in some regions leaves quite a few facts out of the equation. Water increases tree growth so pouring 10 gallons of water on a tree rather than 1 gallon will increase growth?
If you read the article it is a very complicated "model" (we know some people hate those) and the tree growth in northern forests is actually decreasing. There is also another paper on the NASA site that indicates that some of the rain forests are a break even as far as CO2 generation and sinking. It also appears that water scarcity and increased temperatures will also become an issue.
But I am glad to see that the OP agrees that deforestation is an issue (Tree Hugger) and that he endorses the science at NASA at least this time.
I am a big environmentalist and oppose destruction of our environment including rain forests. Label it "liberal" if you want.
I don't think capitalism has to be sacrificed in order to save rain forests.
Tell that to Brazil
Quote:
The state of Rondônia in western Brazil — once home to 208,000 square
kilometers of forest (about 51.4 million acres), an area slightly smaller than
the state of Kansas — has become one of the most deforested parts of the Amazon.
In the past three decades, clearing and degradation of the state’s forests have
been rapid: 4,200 square kilometers cleared by 1978; 30,000 by 1988; and 53,300
by 1998. By 2003, an estimated 67,764 square kilometers of rainforest—an area
larger than the state of West Virginia—had been cleared.
There is nothing in your link that says capitalism and rain forests cannot coexist. We don't have to choose between the two. Humans respond to incentives and do things needed for survival. Destroying rain forests meets that need but it doesn't have to.
There is nothing in your link that says capitalism and rain forests cannot coexist. We don't have to choose between the two. Humans respond to incentives and do things needed for survival. Destroying rain forests meets that need but it doesn't have to.
So why does Brazil continue with deforestation, how does a growing economy come to terms and coexist. Humans will always choose profits over the environment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
