The Paradox of Pollution-Producing Trees

Why some greenery can make smog worse

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The next time you walk past a poplar or a black gum tree on a busy city street, think twice before taking a long, deep breath. Although these trees produce oxygen, they also release compounds that can react in the air to create lung-damaging ozone.

“It is kind of a surprise,” says Galina Churkina, a senior fellow at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany, who studies urban tree emissions. When certain trees dominate a street, they can raise the ozone level considerably. At ground level, ozone is an oxygen molecule that is linked to asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory illnesses.

Like vehicles and power plants, trees emit airborne chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which in the presence of sunlight react with nitrogen oxides in vehicle fumes to form ozone, one of the components in smog that makes it a health threat. VOCs come out of tailpipes and smokestacks as a by-product of burning fossil fuels; the trees emit them in part to repel insects and to attract pollinators. Species such as birch, tulip and linden release very low levels of VOCs, but others such as black gum, poplar, oak and willow produce a lot, leading to ozone levels that can be eight times higher than those linked to the low-impact trees.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Churkina and her colleagues have not identified specific cities that contain too many of the top VOC emitters. That is up to urban planners. Because sunlight is needed to form ozone, and the reaction is more vigorous at higher temperatures, cold, cloudy cities have fewer worries than warm, sunny ones. Yet the problem could worsen because of climate change.

Does this mean cities should start cutting down the top emitters? No, Churkina says. Even the worst offenders are not a concern if they are scattered on city streets. Understanding, however, that a linden tree is better than a poplar can help metropolitan areas avoid problems. For example, “plant a million trees” projects are becoming popular as a way to store carbon dioxide, slow heat rise and soak up storm water. “We want them to be careful about choosing the best species,” Churkina says. She will be meeting with Berlin officials this summer, and Boulder, Colo., is examining the issue.

Of course, there is another solution. Reduce car emissions, and cities won't have to worry about the trees.

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti
Scientific American Magazine Vol 310 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Trees That Pollute” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 310 No. 6 (), p. 14
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0614-14

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe