Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1152838)	7/28/2019 2:22:48 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570681

>> Planting ‘Billions of Trees’ Isn’t Going to Stop Climate Change If it isn't, then carbon isn't a problem (which is likely correct). But it is entirely harmless and could be done cost effectively if properly organized. Depending on the types of trees and the density, you could get the cost to the range of 0.25-0.50/tree, putting a trillion trees at a cost of 250 Billion -- downright reasonable over a period of, e.g., 10 years if you could get other countries to chip in; a hell of a lot less expensive than the Paris nonsense. Even clearcut stands of timber will grow back over time, but it would make sense to do a lot of planting. And frankly, you'd probably get the more thoughtful people like me to get onboard with that easier than you would the idiotic bullshit alarmists are doing now. At least if it turns out GW was the nonsense many of us believe it is, you'd still have the damned trees. As to whether it is true trees will solve the "problem". Of course it will. Trees suck carbon out of the air for 20-50 years at a time. Hell, 50 years from now carbon production will be substantially reduced no matter what. So, yes, it does reduce carbon. Whether that matters is another question. There is no evidence anyone is harmed at all by too much carbon in the air at anywhere near the current concentrations.