what about pros?
nobody ever talks about the vast swaths of siberia and canada that will become arable...
nobody ever talks about the vast swaths of siberia and canada that will become arable...
Smokey the bear wasn't around to put out forest fires. Mucho big big fires. Some Indian tribes would use fire to help them hunt, lightening, smokers, and disease.imortal wrote:
okay, I will call BS on that one. The US used to have a huge forest from the east coast to the Mississippi river. Gone. I doubt the trees planted in the other areas compensate for that.Lotta_Drool wrote:
US has more Trees now than in the 1700s.SEREVENT wrote:
Brazil's #1 argument:- Europe and America cut their forrests down. Why can't we? I know they are started to use less of the "slash and burn method" and using sustainable development. But the damage is done. Prevention is better than cure.
I am not a tree hugger by any means. The majority of our CO2 >>> O2 cycle is conducted by blue-green algae in the oceans anyway. But they look pretty.
Ok, I can buy that; I guess. Not like we have satelite imagery of the before picture, after all.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Smokey the bear wasn't around to put out forest fires. Mucho big big fires. Some Indian tribes would use fire to help them hunt, lightening, smokers, and disease.imortal wrote:
okay, I will call BS on that one. The US used to have a huge forest from the east coast to the Mississippi river. Gone. I doubt the trees planted in the other areas compensate for that.Lotta_Drool wrote:
US has more Trees now than in the 1700s.
I am not a tree hugger by any means. The majority of our CO2 >>> O2 cycle is conducted by blue-green algae in the oceans anyway. But they look pretty.
Wouldn't the sea level actually go down? I thought the glaciers and polar ice caps had some kind of gravitational pull on the ocean.ELITE-UK wrote:
Rise in sea levels
6 degrees that will change the world.