Funny how The Hive likes to brand itself as a gathering of intellectuals, The Reality-Based Communityâ„¢ if you will, until a bit of science comes along that doesn't seem quite politically correct. Then, they suddenly confirm themselves as the gibbering primitives which frank so aptly describes.
The Straight Story (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-18-08 07:54 PM
Original message
Air Experts: Trees Pollute More Than Cars
Air Experts: Trees Pollute More Than Cars
Written by Karen Massie, Reporter
SACRAMENTO, CA - The lush green canopy covering the capitol city is the reason Sacramento is known as the City of Trees.
But all those trees and plant also play a major role in the metropolitan area's ranking for having the 12th dirtiest air in the nation.
"Trees emit what's called biogenic volatile organic compounds," said Charles Anderson of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. He explained that's a fancy name for hydrocarbons, a key component of smog.
"The trees emit probably about 80 percent of the total emission in the area," Anderson said. Studies show trees will pump 360 tons of hydrocarbons into the air every day this summer.
"That's four times more than the amount of pollution that comes from cars and trucks," Anderson added.
http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=40823
rockymountaindem (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-18-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Huh?
Exactly.
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-18-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Otherwise known as pollen? nt
Um, no, Babbling One. Hydrocarbons do not equal "pollen".
NightWatcher (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-18-08 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. save the planet, cut down the rainforests???
I thought that trees did that whole "carbon dioxide to air" conversion that allows us to breath.
The last time I was in the woods, I cant remember how bad that fresh air made me feel
Uh, no. No one has suggested cutting down trees. Just the simple pointing out that some types of trees produce more hydrocarbons than others and that tree types can be chosen that produce less hydrocarbon. Nice strawman, though.
lligrd (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-18-08 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. And They Cause Forest Fires Too
See, * was right. We need to cut them all down.
Another strawman. Easier than actually thinking about it isn't it?
Jesuswasntafascist (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-18-08 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
16. Where do they find these idiots.
And who in their right mind would believe this shit?
Finding idiots is easy, I just go to your website. Finding someone who will actually consider science objectively and not just dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit with your worldview, not so easy over there.
Then the resident genius chimes in:
kenny blankenship (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-18-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. they also emit OXYGEN
Edited on Fri Apr-18-08 08:40 PM by kenny blankenship
so unless you want to try living without oxygen-and I can arrange that for you, Mr. Anderson, if you are so inclined-you just leave the ****ing trees alone.
Hydrocarbons, which this DOUCHEBAG calls "a component of smog", are natural components of the atmosphere, since even if mankind didn't exist they would come abundantly from plants. Plants, as noted above, are also responsible for the presence of oxygen, all oxygen in the world's atmosphere, which I would be glad to stop flowing into Mr. Anderson's body, if he finds it to be an annoyance. The OTHER thing however that goes into making smog, the "COMPONENT" which he neglected to mention in connection with the natural atmospheric "component", are NITROGEN OXIDES, and those come primarily from our gas and diesel burning vehicles. To say something is a component implies logically the existence of other components, and to speak of one component as if it were the whole is to speak dishonestly. Other industrial processes and power generation contribute to the levels of nitrogen oxides, but most of it comes from our cars.
When you fly into a metropolitan area on an airplane, and you see that characteristic layer of reddish-brown haze, you are looking at nitrogen oxides, a real form of POLLUTION, and the essentially manmade component of "smog". You do not see this in the troposphere of wooded countryside where there are few people and cars. Haze-yes, SMOG? no. The hydrocarbon emissions of trees is in no sense POLLUTION, or a contributor to pollution, until they are mixed with the byproducts of fossil fuel burning, which we humans do on a planetarily significant scale.
Sorry Mr. Genius, you lose:
Reagan was right: trees cause pollution - nation in brief - Ronald Reagan - Brief Article
Insight on the News, April 15, 2003 by John Elvin
Here's hoping former president Ronald Reagan is enjoying the loudest laugh. You may recall that one of the examples used by his critics to portray him as a shallow dimwit was his contention that trees caused as much smog as cars. What a hoot! Well, who's hooting now? New scientific evidence indicates that Reagan's assessment may have been in fact moderate. It appears that coniferous forests actually could be causing more smog than traffic and industry combined.
According to a study by the University of Helsinki, coniferous forests--that is to say, those composed of trees such as pines--release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere that combine with other pollutants to form smog.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_9_19/ai_100111682
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3177725
