4 ms·

>For some context, if we planted trees wherever we could around the world we can only undo a decades worth of emissions[0]. Not even, say you could transform t

>For some context, if we planted trees wherever we could around the world we can only undo a decades worth of emissions[0]. Not even, say you could transform the Sahara to rain forest, awesome right? I mean it would be an incredible feat, but it would give you exactly 0 with reducing carbon. Contrary to popular belief the Amazon rain forest aren't the "lungs" of the planet, the Amazon rain forest is basically net 0. Why? Because the rain forest also has a tremendous amount of life/animals, those animals use the oxygen and produce carbon. The real "lungs" of the planet are in the ocean.

otterley 5y ago
Wait a minute. Are you saying that the animals in the Amazonian rain forest produce more CO2 than the plants within it consume? Do you have any data that shows this?
- hitpointdrew 5y ago
  This is cited in the documentary "One Strange Rock". That is the only data I have. I am trusting that the documentary is accurate, I have not fact checked the documentary. EDIT: You might find this PBS article interesting as well, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-wont-deplete-the-earths-oxygen-supply-heres-why https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won... "Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."
  - otterley 5y ago
    Saying net production of oxygen is zero is not identical to saying net sequestration of carbon dioxide is zero. Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2 You can see here that there's glucose (a carbohydrate) being produced in addition to oxygen.
eloff 5y ago
The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture. Trees sequester carbon. They also return that carbon to the atmosphere eventually, but as long as they're replaced by new trees, that's fine. That's not what's happening in the Amazon. From a carbon perspective forests for timber are even better because then we keep several generations of trees worth of carbon locked up in our structures. It's also an easier sell because that has real economic value. From a biodiversity perspective it's not as good to have monoculture crops of any kind, including trees.
- hitpointdrew 5y ago
  > The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture. According to the documentary "One Strange Rock", which I admit I have not fact checked, your statement is absolutely false. The documentary claims 100% of the oxygen produced by the Amazon rain forest is used up by the animals that live in it. EDIT: Also this PBS article backups the claim. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-wont-deplete-the-earths-oxygen-supply-heres-why https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won... "Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."
  - eloff 5y ago
    I find that believable, but we're talking about carbon, not oxygen. Forests do sequester carbon for a period, although most of it is released again in fires and decomposition (chemically just a slow fire.) But the point is that a forest locks up a lot of carbon compared to cleared grazing or cropland.
Dylan16807 5y ago
When people talk about adding new forests, they're mostly talking about the carbon used to make up the trees and animals. That all comes out of the air.

otterley 5y ago

Wait a minute. Are you saying that the animals in the Amazonian rain forest produce more CO2 than the plants within it consume? Do you have any data that shows this?

hitpointdrew 5y ago
This is cited in the documentary "One Strange Rock". That is the only data I have. I am trusting that the documentary is accurate, I have not fact checked the documentary. EDIT: You might find this PBS article interesting as well, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-wont-deplete-the-earths-oxygen-supply-heres-why https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won... "Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."
- otterley 5y ago
  Saying net production of oxygen is zero is not identical to saying net sequestration of carbon dioxide is zero. Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2 You can see here that there's glucose (a carbohydrate) being produced in addition to oxygen.

eloff 5y ago

The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture. Trees sequester carbon. They also return that carbon to the atmosphere eventually, but as long as they're replaced by new trees, that's fine. That's not what's happening in the Amazon. From a carbon perspective forests for timber are even better because then we keep several generations of trees worth of carbon locked up in our structures. It's also an easier sell because that has real economic value. From a biodiversity perspective it's not as good to have monoculture crops of any kind, including trees.

hitpointdrew 5y ago
> The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture. According to the documentary "One Strange Rock", which I admit I have not fact checked, your statement is absolutely false. The documentary claims 100% of the oxygen produced by the Amazon rain forest is used up by the animals that live in it. EDIT: Also this PBS article backups the claim. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-wont-deplete-the-earths-oxygen-supply-heres-why https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won... "Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."
- eloff 5y ago
  I find that believable, but we're talking about carbon, not oxygen. Forests do sequester carbon for a period, although most of it is released again in fires and decomposition (chemically just a slow fire.) But the point is that a forest locks up a lot of carbon compared to cleared grazing or cropland.

Dylan16807 5y ago

When people talk about adding new forests, they're mostly talking about the carbon used to make up the trees and animals. That all comes out of the air.