I think this thread was posted earlier.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ighlight=trees
People don't quite get the point of the article and the strudy, here was my post from the previous thread.
Quote:
|
Dr Bala and his colleague, Ken Caldeira of the department of global ecology at the Carneige Institute in Standford, used a computer model to show that, outside a thin band around the equator, forests end up trapping more heat than they help to get rid of through a cut in carbon dioxide. Planting trees above 50 degrees latitude - the equivalent of Scandinavia or Siberia in the northern hemisphere - can also cover up tundra normally blanketed in heat-reflecting snow.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dr Caldeira warned that chopping down trees outside the tropics was not a good idea. "Preservation of ecosystems is a primary goal of preventing global warming, and the destruction of ecosystems to prevent global warming would be a counterproductive and perverse strategy."
Dr Bala added: "Apart from their role in altering the planet's climate, forests are valuable in many other aspects. Forests provide natural habitat to plants and animals, preserve the biodiversity, produce economically valuable timber and firewood, protect watersheds and indirectly prevent ocean acidification."
|
Seemed like what the study showed was that planting trees outside of their natural habitat was bad for the environment. And countries that are doing this are doing it for the carbon credits, which lots of people on this board are not a fan of the Kyoto plan anyway, because it wasn't thought through enough. As is the case here.