Can Forest be a NEGATIVE Green House Contributor
Never MIND. I was hoping I could entice a Creative Student into Investigating a Unpopular and Un-Green Concept I have my Answer. Yale University is Already Working on this.. And the ANSWER is MAYBE??? https://e360.yale.edu/features/scientists-probe-the-surprising-role-of-trees-in-methane-emissions After about 200 Years (The Life of the Trees) .. ANY Tropical Rain Forest MUST NET ZERO Carbon. Equilibrium.. that is Old Rotting Equals NEW Living Breathing. The Total amount of Carbon Mass can not be destroyed by a Tree's LIFE and Death. No Amount of Green Number Confusion can defy this simple 8th Grade Biology. Yes if you DESTROY an existing Forest. You Unlock that amount. The amount that is CYCLING between Growth and Decay. HOWEVER!!! Rotting Trees do not decompose directly into the CO2 they breathed. In Fact. Rotting Trees Primarily Produces Methane. Methane is a Green Danger of 81 times that of CO2 (Bernie Sanders Fighting Fracking) The Equilibrium Balance of a FOREST can NOT be One to One. GREEN MATH is Ignoring the AMPLIFIED effects of Methane. Is Forestation a Viable Solution OR could it be Counter-Productive as a Long Term Green House Reduction TOOL!!!
Barry County Michigan
Glad you found out what you were looking for from Yale.
Thanks for writing.