Why did you buy a house in my neighboorhood?

[Wall-E1]

Trees do not clean the air.

I can see this is pointless. Anyway, as to your insightful comments above...

1. Of course, dust and particles settle on everything. I am talking about the trees ability to suck in harmful air pollutants. You are talking about dust and organic waste that builds up on a window. They are not the same thing. It is not air pollutants that you are wiping off of your window.

2. The chemicals you mentioned are naturally occuring, but they are pollutents to clean air that humans breathe. These chemicals have always been present in the atmosphere, but we are adding these chemicals to the atmosphere at a dangerous rate and level. Therefore, we are polluting the natural balance of the atmosphere by releasing these harmful chemicals at the rate we are. I guess if extinction isn't a concern of yours, one could argue that an atmosphere of pure carbon minoxide is natural. It is a natural gas. Of course, since it would have the effect of wiping out humanity, most would consider it a pollutant.

3. You say my statement about reducing the toxins from the air make no sense to you. I can't help you there. I was very clear on why we would need to. You think its absurd. Okay?!?!? I happen to want life to continue on this planet. You don't seem to understand that a balance must be achieved in the air in order to sustain life. Sorry that you are unable to comprehend this.

4. Fossil fuels are the major source of sulfur dioxide being released into our atmosphere, contributing to the sudden spike. Yes, a volcano will give off more sulfur dioxide when one periodically erupts, depending on its size, but I am referring to the day to day amount of sulfur dioxide being released. So, when you can come back to me and show me the scientific data that shows that the recent spike of sulfer dioxide in the atmospere over the past century is a result of volcanoes, plants and oceans, I'll be here waiting. All of the scientific data I have seen points to the increase in fossil fuel burning being the cause of the last century's rise in levels.

You really don't get it, do you?

 

[BelleWDW]

We have 15 trees on our 1/2 acre lot

Many of our neighbors have NO trees!

It would tick me off BIG time if a neighbor was chopping some trees down

OP_i feel your pain@!

 

[phragmipedium]

I'm not anti-tree, but we did take down the two huge silver maples in our backyard (a 1940's war-era home in a neighborhood of officer's homes) earlier this year. We had a few reasons:

-We have two labs and we wanted them to have more room to run and play.
-The root structure on these trees were huge and sprawling, something the "tree guy" said they are known for - he also said that as far as silver oaks go, these were just babies and would keep getting huger and more sprawling. They threatened our patio and the foundation of a shed/shop in the yard as well.
-We have a lot of wind and bad weather here, and it's not uncommon for silver maples to be brittle during storms - the last thing we wanted was damage from falling branches to our home or neighbor's homes.
-We had a vision for the backyard when we purchased the home - part of the yard was a hillside, which we planned to terrace so I would have a space to garden. Doing so would reduce the space the dogs had to play even more, and removal of the trees to open things up was part of the plan.

So far our vision is taking place - we fenced the backyard first. Then we removed the trees and had the stumps and roots ground out. Then we painstakingly excavated the hillside and built our terrace levels into it this summer. Finally, we laid sod as our home was a foreclosure and badly in need of some landscaping help. This spring I hope to garden on my terrace and possibly plant a few smaller, maybe fruit-bearing trees on the top level of the terrace is also in the plan as well as establishing something vining, maybe Virginia creeper, along the fence for natural privacy.

So, I'm not anti-tree - but sometimes people have a vision for their home that you might not see yet. And I did *not* miss raking leaves this fall - there were over 30 huge bags last year - nor do I miss the squirrels which drive my dogs crazy. I can tell you our yard will look *so* much better by the time we're done - it already does.

 

[Wall-E1]

Bolding mine Trees cleanse the air by...reducing heat.
Shade does not cleanse the air

Again, I don't understand what you are debating. You stated that heat is not a pollutant. I agreed with you and stated that the article also did not state that heat was a polluntant. Now you have highlighted a portion of the article that still does not say that heat is a pollutant. What's your point? The article states that trees help cleanse the air by reducing heat. This does not mean that it is accusing heat of being a polluntant. If you were to google why this is the case, you would understand that some of the harmful chemicals we are discussing are temperature dependent. They are suppressed by cooler temperatures. Also, reducing heat reduces the need for air conditioning, which reduces the amount of harmful chemicals being released into the atmosphere. So, yes, trees help cleanse the air by reducing heat. This is achieved by shade.

 

[Wall-E1]

Oh and Wall E

Your link is to some Global Warming site?

Nice try.

Talk about science.

My link is not to some global warming website. My link is to to the U.S. Forest Service. It is a government website. Did you happen to notice the http://www.fs.fed.us at the beginning portion of the address? That is an official U.S. federal government website. My link was to a program and study being done by the U.S. Forest Service in conjuction with the Environmental Protection Agency. So yes, I would consider the article and scientific findings in it very scientific.

 

[shrubber]

I can see this is pointless. Anyway, as to your insightful comments above...

1. Of course, dust and particles settle on everything. I am talking about the trees ability to suck in harmful air pollutants. You are talking about dust and organic waste that builds up on a window. They are not the same thing. It is not air pollutants that you are wiping off of your window.
Trees do not suck in anything. You said , twice that a major benefit of trees in cleaning the air is to capture particulate matter, I said they have no more ability to capture particulates than buildings or windows, I take it that you have changed your mind and come around to reason, good for you
2. The chemicals you mentioned are naturally occuring, but they are pollutents to clean air that humans breathe. These chemicals have always been present in the atmosphere, but we are adding these chemicals to the atmosphere at a dangerous rate and level. Therefore, we are polluting the natural balance of the atmosphere by releasing these harmful chemicals at the rate we are. I guess if extinction isn't a concern of yours, one could argue that an atmosphere of pure carbon minoxide is natural. It is a natural gas. Of course, since it would have the effect of wiping out humanity, most would consider it a pollutant.
Ah, again you've changed your tune, interesting, Rather than go over the same ground again, or changed ground in your case, let's just say that your premis is incorrect, we in fact are not adding these gases to the atmosphere at a dangerous rate and level, quite the opposite.
3. You say my statement about reducing the toxins from the air make no sense to you. I can't help you there. I was very clear on why we would need to. You think its absurd. Okay?!?!? I happen to want life to continue on this planet. You don't seem to understand that a balance must be achieved in the air in order to sustain life. Sorry that you are unable to comprehend this.
I'm pretty sure the planet will get along just fine with or without both of Wall E . No need to get your tinsel in a tangle
4. Fossil fuels are the major source of sulfur dioxide being released into our atmosphere, contributing to the sudden spike. Yes, a volcano will give off more sulfur dioxide when one periodically erupts, depending on its size, but I am referring to the day to day amount of sulfur dioxide being released. So, when you can come back to me and show me the scientific data that shows that the recent spike of sulfer dioxide in the atmospere over the past century is a result of volcanoes, plants and oceans, I'll be here waiting. All of the scientific data I have seen points to the increase in fossil fuel burning being the cause of the last century's rise in levels.
First of all, and sorry to burst the third grade science bubble, there is no such thing as fossil fuels, dead dinosaurs don't make fuel
And far from being a pollutant as you call it, the same global warming scientists such as the website you posted actually hope MORE would be put in the air!!
: Using eruptions from Mount Pinatubo as a model, Thomas Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests infusing the atmos*phere with 5.5 million tons of sulfur dioxide every one, two or four years. Combined with a CO2 emissions cap, Wigley estimates the infusion could halt global warming for up to 50 years.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4216744.html


You really don't get it, do you?

Listen, be a tree hugger all you want, like I said, I love trees too, just don't get all weepy when I want to build a house out of my tree

 

[shrubber]

My link is not to some global warming website. My link is to to the U.S. Forest Service. It is a government website. Did you happen to notice the http://www.fs.fed.us at the beginning portion of the address? That is an official U.S. federal government website. My link was to a program and study being done by the U.S. Forest Service in conjuction with the Environmental Protection Agency. So yes, I would consider the article and scientific findings in it very scientific.

Your link is to a Sacramento California Plant a tree initative! to combat global warming for crying out loud....
I refuse to get into that argument, but suffice to say it's not settled....

Ya want some real science, How about trees emit Methane into the atmosphere!
Ya know, that dangerous toxic gas.....and not just a little bit either, better than a quarter of the methane in the air comes from ...gasp...trees!
I guess we oghta cut em all down to save our planet huh?

 

[shrubber]

Again, I don't understand what you are debating. You stated that heat is not a pollutant. I agreed with you and stated that the article also did not state that heat was a polluntant. Now you have highlighted a portion of the article that still does not say that heat is a pollutant. What's your point? The article states that trees help cleanse the air by reducing heat. This does not mean that it is accusing heat of being a polluntant. If you were to google why this is the case, you would understand that some of the harmful chemicals we are discussing are temperature dependent. They are suppressed by cooler temperatures. Also, reducing heat reduces the need for air conditioning, which reduces the amount of harmful chemicals being released into the atmosphere. So, yes, trees help cleanse the air by reducing heat. This is achieved by shade.

Ok help me here with the symantics...How do you clean heat?

 

[shrubber]

My link is not to some global warming website. My link is to to the U.S. Forest Service. It is a government website. Did you happen to notice the http://www.fs.fed.us at the beginning portion of the address? That is an official U.S. federal government website. My link was to a program and study being done by the U.S. Forest Service in conjuction with the Environmental Protection Agency. So yes, I would consider the article and scientific findings in it very scientific.

Well here are some scientists who think that all these tree planting schemes are bad for the environment

http://www.iema.net/news/envnews?aid=10949

 

[Wall-E1]

Listen, be a tree hugger all you want, like I said, I love trees too, just don't get all weepy when I want to build a house out of my tree

1. It's scientific fact. Trees suck in pollutants. Scientists have determined this to be true much to the dismay of shrub sales people the world over.

2. You state that we we are not adding harmful gases to the atmospehere. This has also been scientifically shown to be untrue. We are able to measure the amounts of different chemicals in our air, and have charted the increase in these harmful chemicals.

3. You say the planet will get along fine without reducing toxins. We do know that high levels of these toxins are deadly for humans to breathe in. Again, scientifically proven.

4. You say there is no such thing as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are coal, oil and natural gas.

5. You state that the same global warming scientists that are trying to reduce these chemicals in the air are also trying to increase them in the air. I hope you can see how ridiculous that statement is. First of all, you seem to now be debating global warming, while the whole discussion has been about air pollution. Second, you can see by the names of the scientists, that they are not the same. Third, the scientic study I posted a link to was not one to "global warming" scientists. Finally, the article that you linked to, is an article about reducing the sun's rays that penetrate our atmosphere to halt global warming. So, what are you trying to say? What does that have to do with trees being a benefit for reducing air pollutants? You seem to be getting more and more confused.

 

[Wall-E1]

Your link is to a Sacramento California Plant a tree initative! to combat global warming for crying out loud....
I refuse to get into that argument, but suffice to say it's not settled....

Ya want some real science, How about trees emit Methane into the atmosphere!
Ya know, that dangerous toxic gas.....and not just a little bit either, better than a quarter of the methane in the air comes from ...gasp...trees!
I guess we oghta cut em all down to save our planet huh?

The title of the article is "Trees and the Clean Air Act: Strategic tree planting in Sacramento. It is a scientific study being done by the U.S. Forest Service. The article discusses how trees fight air pollution. There is no mention of global warming in the article AT ALL. It is all about air quality. Please, show me where in that article it discusses ways to combat global warming.

Humans emit methane every time we fart. I guess we should cut down the human race.

I'm sorry, but your comments are crossing over from the ridiculous to just outright bizarre.

 

[JessicaR]

Any Rush fans?

I live on a Greenbelt. We have many many trees and an incredible assortment of wildlife. If a chainsaw is heard you can bet the Town officials will be called to make sure there is a permit in place to remove a single tree.

The Trees

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

 

[Wall-E1]

Ok help me here with the symantics...How do you clean heat?

I don't know, but since nobody has suggested cleaning heat, why discuss it? Trees help cleanse the air by reducing heat, but this is not the same as cleaning heat.

 

[shrubber]

1. It's scientific fact. Trees suck in pollutants. Scientists have determined this to be true much to the dismay of shrub sales people the world over.
Just one pollutant please ...name just one
2. You state that we we are not adding harmful gases to the atmospehere. This has also been scientifically shown to be untrue. We are able to measure the amounts of different chemicals in our air, and have charted the increase in these harmful chemicals.
Wrong , this time instead of changing your statement to suit your needs, your changing mine, I said we in fact are not adding these gases to the atmosphere at a dangerous rate and level
3. You say the planet will get along fine without reducing toxins. We do know that high levels of these toxins are deadly for humans to breathe in. Again, scientifically proven.
It is absurd to think we can reduce naturally occuring gases, go try to plug a volcano or a swamp,
4. You say there is no such thing as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are coal, oil and natural gas.
Regardless of elementary education, Oil does not come from dead T rex's . Oil is abiotic, it is naturally occuring byproduct of heat from the earths core and the minerals it's pushed through
5. You state that the same global warming scientists that are trying to reduce these chemicals in the air are also trying to increase them in the air. I hope you can see how ridiculous that statement is. First of all, you seem to now be debating global warming, while the whole discussion has been about air pollution. Second, you can see by the names of the scientists, that they are not the same. Third, the scientic study I posted a link to was not one to "global warming" scientists. Finally, the article that you linked to, is an article about reducing the sun's rays that penetrate our atmosphere to halt global warming. So, what are you trying to say? What does that have to do with trees being a benefit for reducing air pollutants? You seem to be getting more and more confused.

Again a bit of revision on your part, you brought up global warming in your link. I merely responded. I also did not say the same scientists , I believe I said such as . You are grasping at staws here

 

[shrubber]

Any Rush fans?

I live on a Greenbelt. We have many many trees and an incredible assortment of wildlife. If a chainsaw is heard you can bet the Town officials will be called to make sure there is a permit in place to remove a single tree.

The Trees

I always liked that song

 

[Wall-E1]

Well here are some scientists who think that all these tree planting schemes are bad for the environment

http://www.iema.net/news/envnews?aid=10949

Did you read the article? In it, Robert Jackson of Duke University states, "The purpose of our article isn't to suggest plantations are bad." The article is just stating that planting more trees can have an effect on the water table. He is suggesting that scientists need to take this into consideration. Your assessment that they think it is bad for the environment is a bad assessment. They are merely suggesting that we must plan carefully the locations where we plant trees and the types of trees that we plant. Try reading the article, and not just the title.

 

[shrubber]

I don't know, but since nobody has suggested cleaning heat, why discuss it? Trees help cleanse the air by reducing heat, but this is not the same as cleaning heat.

The article states that trees help cleanse the air by reducing heat

 

[shrubber]

Did you read the article? In it, Robert Jackson of Duke University states, "The purpose of our article isn't to suggest plantations are bad." The article is just stating that planting more trees can have an effect on the water table. He is suggesting that scientists need to take this into consideration. Your assessment that they think it is bad for the environment is a bad assessment. They are merely suggesting that we must plan carefully the locations where we plant trees and the types of trees that we plant. Try reading the article, and not just the title.

Oh, I read the article

Tree planting is set to increase in developing countries as 'carbon trading' initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol get underway. But young trees use up considerably more water than crops or pastures. This can decrease the flow of water in nearby streams or dry them out completely. By absorbing more nutrients than other types of vegetation, trees can also change the chemical make-up of soil.

"They take up 'good' nutrients, such as nitrogen, calcium, and potassium, and leave behind others, such as sodium, that can increase salinity," explains Jackson. Trees can also deplete shallow underground supplies of freshwater, drawing up deeper salty water and potentially affecting local drinking water supplies, as has happened in parts of Argentina.

 

[Jennasis]

Guys please! Can't we all just get along?

No?

Carry on.

I imagine that there'd be a few unhappy people about the 800 acres of forest that my neighbor cleared. Though he is farming on it...corn.

 

[shrubber]

Heck the reason I posted it was to point out some of the absurdity of this science about tree cleaning.