You're right, damn those trees. Let's fell all remaining ancient woodland and build giant CO2 extractors (that don't exist and probably won't in my lifetime). As flippant as my comment is, sadly, I suspect there are people who think that's actually the way forward.
Us of advancing years tend to think climate change will affect the kids mostly but that’s not necessarily true. As far as I understand it things get gradually worse (where we are now) and then an at an unknown ‘tipping point’ everything spirals disastrously out of control. And that could be next week /month/ year for all we know. Well that’s cheered me up.
Arguably, young trees grow quicker and convert CO2 to oxygen at a faster rate than mature trees. So, chopping down all old trees and planting replacement saplings *might* work.
On the plus side, if the sea levels rise 2m Barnsley will be a lot closer to the coast and house prices might increase. On the downside we would have to sacrifice most of Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk... Seems a fair trade to me
I thought latest research was that young forests are net carbon emitters (when taking into account the whole environment as it stabilises), while its older more mature forests that are carbon sinks?
On that, I heard somewhere once that if you were coming from the east coast, Hoyland Law Stand is the highest point you’d come across. Well before you got to the Pennines and all that.
If you want to cut down on your emissions by eating less meat get yourself to Greggs. Their vegan sausage and bean melt that came out last Thursday is surprisingly delicious. Can't tell the difference between that and the real thing they do. Far better than their attempt at a vegan sausage roll that's not a patch on the original.
If the answer is a Greggs vegan sausage and bean melt.... i really have no idea what the question would have to be!
What is is for lunch when you've had this for breakfast? https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.u...rie-150-item-mammoth-breakfast-fry-up-3340105
I've just reread this post and realised that it is basically the opposite of the Greek proverb '“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”
Did you read the last paragraph? The post does not say we should not try, but IMHO all the measures we come up with will ultimately be futile. Nature always wins in the long run. As a simple example, in addition to sorting out our weekly rubbish for recycling, I religiously recycle 'non- recyclable' 'non bio-degradable' coffee pods weekly. as a miniscule contribution to the environment. Although Nespresso as one example have switched to recyclable ones and some others do make bio-degradable ones many still don't. Over a billion pods every year end up in landfill. I cut them in half, remove the grounds (great for composting in our garden) and separate the aluminium tops from the plastic and recycle both. Tedious and time consuming and I suspect very few consumers do the same. I have emailed the firm a few times regarding them switching to biodegradable but besides the PR speak replies... "we are looking into it" bugger all has happened. Why don't I just stop buying them and buy Nespresso one you ask? I could but I have the machine, the coffee is good and it enables me to bring up the topic every time I order more pods. Maybe that is irrelevant but I think that they are more likely to listen to their customer base than a simple protest group. I also used to use a conventional coffee espresso machine but for various reasons, but , selfishly I suppose, I switched to the convenience of pods. When this machine reaches end of life I will likely switch to a system that is more eco friendly. This is a small example of why I said "futile" earlier. The idea that the odd individual can change the habits of the general population/corporations through simple powers of persuasion and appealing to their better nature is, frankly, idealistic and 'pie in the sky'. Cynical perhaps, but I am a realist.
If nature always wins why are we managing to warm the planet at an alarming rate? Surely nature would correct this, and it isn't?
I think this is well known and it is recognised that conifer plantations are marginally beneficial in combating global warming.
Nature plays the long game. It's happy to wait 10 million years to redress the balance once humans are merely stardust.