Re: Tree planting

In article <ujtlg5hlu9eqpidte8qqfblp7ptonf06fd@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote:


Some more than others and "ancient trees" less than any?
Ancient trees make a pretty well neutral affect on CO2, as does grass
or crops.

What about the ancient trees' leaves falling annually? Does that not
make them a negative effect?
Leaves grow every year and drop off and rot. How can that be a negative
effect.

So what trees are the best for storing CO2? I would think conifers,
Conifers are capable of growing close and quick so can absorb CO2
faster than some broadleaf trees but not all. Several types of
coppice are more efficient.

What ones?
Willow and poplar coppice to name just two. Well maintained hazel and
chestnut probably may do.

They don't shed their leaves to rot annually, they're faster growing
and the timber can be used in construction thereby allowing new
conifers to be planted to store more carbon - more efficiently. Is
this not the case?

And in general those in the UK can't be sold even though they are
already grown because they are not economic and the quality is not good
enough.

Why's that?

Because people buying them want better quality.


Think of the energy value from an acre of mature forest or an acre
of herbage.

The mature deciduous forest will hardly store any carbon

Eh? You are mistaken there. They will do much better than grass for
at least 50 years.

How much better? You've just said that grass has a neutral effect.
Indeed and trees do much better than neutral, particular for a great number
of years.
(I take it you are aware that the bulk of the wood is cellulose)

Yes.
You could have fooled me.
and will have the negative effect of shedding leaves to rot annually
Oh dear Angus, Do you thing the crops and grass will hang around beyond
a year or two without being recycled back to the atmosphere as CO2 and
worse CH4

So conifers are much better.
That does not follow at all. Do you think it's because needles don't fall
from conifers?
and when the trees die they will rot and release all that has been
stored. Is this not the case?
Of course as is the annual recycling of the straw and other tissue of
grasses and other crops.

Sure but they win of reflectivity even if they were the same.

Herbage? Better or worse?
I told you last post.

What evidence did you have?
n CO2 + m H20 = lots of C6H12O6 (etc locked up in cellulose) + lots of O2

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tree planting
    ... So do you think crops are less reflective than trees? ... Reflectivity is very much part of the issue. ... The other answers seem to be confusing CO2 absorption with CO2 ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Tree planting
    ... It would seem that trees win hands down, ... says grass is at converting CO2 to some carbon sink, ... And grass and crops feed us; ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Climate models go cold
    ... fossile fuel CO2 emitted during the industrial age post 1850. ... Planting trees isn't a bad thing, ... <the carbon remains intact in the soil. ... Fossile fuels are in terms of hundres of millions ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: OT: Fuel Protests next week (75pence for a can of coke)
    ... >> produce CO2. ... Plants, crops and trees will still grow. ... > *think* electric cars would ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: What has happened to the CRT?
    ... Not only a great source of heat but virtually 100% ... And they don't produce CO2? ... releasing CO2 at about the same rate that live trees are capturing it. ... There's an atmospheric inversion layer ...
    (sci.electronics.design)