Caldeira agrees, saying that protecting the forest should be part of an effort to sustain the world's biodiversity. He also adds that the findings do not endorse clear-cutting or destroying wildlife habitats. "I think that it's important to look at preventing climate change as a means rather than an end in itself," he says. "Too narrow a focus on global warming and a loss of the broader focus of protecting life on this planet can lead to perverse outcomes." Rather than looking to forests to solve the current climate crisis by capturing carbon dioxide, he suggests targeting our "energy system," which continues to create the pollutant.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentIn the article it was mentioned that the suns rays were absorbed by the green leaves and spread warmth to the earth. Don't the leaves keep the suns rays from reaching the earth therefore cooling the area under the tree?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the article: "Caldeira agrees, saying that protecting the forest should be part of an effort to sustain the world's biodiversity. He also adds that the findings do not endorse clear-cutting or destroying wildlife habitats."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, yeah! But how many neocon nature-haters are gonna pay attention to those two sentences?
And while more inclusive, the article doesn't mention studies of how much trees affect the atmospheric oxygen levels. We gotta breathe, ya know. For that matter - some sociological studies show that humans "require" forest environments for better mental health. So - this issue posed as a "trees or no trees" choice isn't very helpful.
The Myth Of Global Warming
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
Philip Atkinson (owner of "ourcivilisaton.com") is an Australian neocon madman. So his claim that global warming is a myth is about as "sane" as his urging President Bush to nuke Iraq, kill all its citizens and make it 100% American owned and operated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, Guest 123, go away and get some psychiatric help. We who believe in Science over ideology insist.
I can only say, any scientific study that does not consider the production of oxygen and the natural functions that result as a consequence of it's production and use, a major function of a tree, is seriously misguided in it's basic assumptions. Perhaps the temperature would drop by .5 degrees if we removed all the forests from the planet, but since the major oxygen producers would also be gone, no one would be left to enjoy. The premise is idiotic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this