I don't see why this couldn't work. But you've got to consider that trees get cut down to make space for shops, malls, houses entire cities built on top of where use to be woodlands. There are far to many people and not enough space, we have to continously build more and more.

They'll find a different solution to curing global warming, but to be honest with you all. The effects of global warming probably won't effect us, or the next generation but probably the generation after that.

Do you (or anybody) then have a better idea to do this in less time? Don't kid yourself, if the problem is so big then the solution will take about the same time to reverse it.


It really doesn't matter how fast the trees grow, as long as they are actually being grown. Although speed would help, it's quantity that counts.


That's gonna change since energy will become a lot more expensive and being farther away from cities would be economically stupid.

This post has been edited by dre: Jan 26 2008, 01:06 AM

Think about this
Cut Down The Trees...but Grow Them Faster?

Taking various data from a few wombat studies a gentlemen did on solely his use of a single man of toilet paper used in his home...On average he used 49 sheets of toilet paper in one year.



Obviously lets take into account that his is a lower number of toilet paper usage. In reguards, it takes 48 full grown trees to make roughly 500 rolls of toilet paper. So using that number it takes about 1/10th of an adult grown paper tree to produce 10 rolls of toilet paper. Now...With that said...Lets say every american in the united states, roughly 300+ million, uses at the very least 49 rolls of toilet paper a year. That is 5 trees a person.



And lets shoot low on the population count (july 2007 census puts you.S. Population at 301,139,947 est.), saying there is only 300 million americans using the lowest- 49 rolls of toilet paper a year = 5 trees. So 300 million americans using 5 trees a year of toilet paper would equate to 1.5 billion trees (roughly, give or take a few million.) To keep up with just toilet paper usage alone you have to plant trees and grow them to match that 1.5 billion tree usage a year.



Wrap your mind around that, and tell us america doesn't have a problem with tree usage. And everyone wonders why 60 percent of the cultures in the middle east use their hand to whipe their ass and then was their hand. Thats why they have all the money, not because of oil you idiots!



-reply by Zach

What? Do you know what the order of events is supposed to be for the next ice age (if it does happen) ? It is supposed to get hotter first so that the ice at the north and south poles melt and raise the global water level. this will change the jet streams in such a way that the temperate regions of the world no longer get the warmth they used to from the equatorials seas and the temperate regions become a whole lot less temperate. the raised water levels will freeze and walah! Your own, true to life Ice Age. Less trees means less CO2 which means the Ozone layer that reflects a lot of the suns heat is gone, so temperatures will rise. But these higher temperatures melt the ice caps and start the whole process.

The CO2 would only be scrubbed up in certain places though wouldnt it? I mean the places that there arent many trees tend to also be the places that have the lowest CO2 emissions. ie rural as hell parts of africa. People are in way too much poverty to be worrying about their SUV gas prices.

A big patch of trees isn't going to help unless we do it everywhere in the world. That's the same problem as trying to cut CO2 emissions in the first place. Jackass countries aren't even trying to cut down on CO2. I doubt they'll do this either. Taking up huge amounts of their driveways just to save the planet.

I'm a bit unsure about the theories which are put forth about global warming, so i'm not too sure lots of trees or less trees would make a difference. i watched a debate between scientists who believed global warming was caused by humans and scientists who thought it was the natural cycle of the earth. I cannot remember the exact details but every so many years or so the earth heats up and then begins its own ice age. They believed the dionsaurs became extinct because of this.

Both sides had impressive supporting evidence which makes you think that both of them are right. One of these was there was no change in the global warming of the plant during the war, despite the amount of pollution which was released. This could mean the pollution which humans cause, which is a lot less than during the war, is actually having no effect on global warming. Obviously science has been wrong before and scientists tend to look for evidence which supports their studies as opposed to evaluating all evidence, which would be very hard to do.

I cannot remember all the facts and i'm sure if you do a search for it an article or video would come up. It gives interesting thoughts on the subject and makes you wonder whether the governments can justify all the taxes they want to place to try to slow global warming. It was attacked afterwards by people saying it was misleading and misrepresenting the facts. The programme summary (called The Great Global Warming Swindle) can be found on this link: [http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/]

But as for the trees i dont think we should keep messing around with nature and genetically modifying things. If the trees grow naturally quickly and in large amounts then fair enough but we've done enough damage by not thinking things through correctly and this would probable be another one like that. Do we really need so many trees anyway? how about educating people not to waste so much paper?