Chopped Down Trees - Clean Air Zone

[Tommo87]

bad company said:

Dingu said:

What a tragic thread. Fact is the OP would be first in the outrage line spitting his dentures out over his morning Daily Mail if any form of chargeable zone signage was obscured calling it a scam etc etc.

You’ve made several ridiculous assumptions there.

Maybe he has just read one of your many published works…

[kambites]

V8covin said:

As I understand it new trees produce CO2 for their 1st 20 to 30 years whilst mature trees remove CO2.....as a generalisation

From what I remember of my GSA biology, I don't think plants have any sort of biological mechanism for producing carbon dioxide? I was under the impression that they convert CO2 to oxygen in the air and carbon in their own biomass from the day they produce their first leaf.

Edited by kambites on Sunday 29th May 18:31

[monthou]

kambites said:

V8covin said:

As I understand it new trees produce CO2 for their 1st 20 to 30 years whilst mature trees remove CO2.....as a generalisation

From what I remember of my GSA biology, I don't think plants have any sort of biological mechanism for producing carbon dioxide?

Respiration.

[Sporky]

Though new trees do absorb CO2.

One reference from bazillions here:

https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-...

[kambites]

monthou said:

Respiration.

Sorry I should have been clearer - I'm not aware of a mechanism for trees to be a net producer of CO2. Yes they burn the sugars they produce, but the carbon in those sugars come from the atmosphere in the first place.

[V8covin]

kambites said:

Sorry I should have been clearer - I'm not aware of a mechanism for trees to be a net producer of CO2. Yes they burn the sugars they produce, but the carbon in those sugars come from the atmosphere in the first place.

I've seen 2 so called tree experts on news programmes discussing global warming in the last couple of years and both stated newly planted trees emit more C02 in their 1st 20 to 30 years than they absorb.
Make of that what you will

[Earthdweller]

Sporky said:

Earthdweller said:

The outrage over the plans has led to the CAZ being shelved ( for now )

Brilliant! Now they can be all smug about winning. I wonder how long before they realise what the prize is.

What is the prize ?

[monthou]

V8covin said:

kambites said:

Sorry I should have been clearer - I'm not aware of a mechanism for trees to be a net producer of CO2. Yes they burn the sugars they produce, but the carbon in those sugars come from the atmosphere in the first place.

I've seen 2 so called tree experts on news programmes discussing global warming in the last couple of years and both stated newly planted trees emit more C02 in their 1st 20 to 30 years than they absorb.
Make of that what you will

I'd love to see a link to that. Not being snarky, I've searched. It seems counterintuitive as that's when they're gaining biomass.

[Sporky]

Earthdweller said:

What is the prize ?

They get to carry on breathing heavily polluted city air.

[Earthdweller]

Sporky said:

Earthdweller said:

What is the prize ?

They get to carry on breathing heavily polluted city air.

Perhaps you should educate yourself about the GM CAZ why the people, businesses and politicians opposed it and why it was withdrawn by the Mayor

[996TT02]

monthou said:

V8covin said:

kambites said:

Sorry I should have been clearer - I'm not aware of a mechanism for trees to be a net producer of CO2. Yes they burn the sugars they produce, but the carbon in those sugars come from the atmosphere in the first place.

I've seen 2 so called tree experts on news programmes discussing global warming in the last couple of years and both stated newly planted trees emit more C02 in their 1st 20 to 30 years than they absorb.
Make of that what you will

I'd love to see a link to that. Not being snarky, I've searched. It seems counterintuitive as that's when they're gaining biomass.

All plants (trees are plants) do respire and do create CO2, and indeed except for some very specific plants do actually create more than they sequester at night, but overall night and day they always sequester more than they create as they increase in mass. It's only when they die and decompose, or are burned, that all of this CO2 is returned. This is why trees can ultimately only be a finite reservoir of carbon, as at some point the rate of creation and that of decomposition of biomass will balance out, as in old forests. A tree dies, gives up carbon, a new one grows in its place and takes it all up again eventually. The more trees the greater the reservoir, but they don't make it disappear. This is why deforestation for purposes other than semi - permanent usage of wood products, such as long lasting furniture, or building materials, is certainly bad in the short term and obviously dependent on ultimate usage of the deforested area, potentially in the long term too. An argument could be made for logging for semi-permanent wood products as long as the land is replanted with trees, as carbon is locked up in the wood products and new trees take up even more. There is little need to mention that the faster a tree grows, the faster it sequesters carbon. And young trees generally grow fast, but as long as a tree is increasing in mass then it is on balance sequstering carbon, there is no threshold below which this does not work. Everything is in proportion to the rate of increase in mass, including the rate of respiration (which creates CO2).

[Sporky]

Earthdweller said:

Perhaps you should educate yourself about the GM CAZ why the people, businesses and politicians opposed it and why it was withdrawn by the Mayor

Yes, dear.

[monthou]

996TT02 said:

monthou said:

V8covin said:

kambites said:

Sorry I should have been clearer - I'm not aware of a mechanism for trees to be a net producer of CO2. Yes they burn the sugars they produce, but the carbon in those sugars come from the atmosphere in the first place.

I've seen 2 so called tree experts on news programmes discussing global warming in the last couple of years and both stated newly planted trees emit more C02 in their 1st 20 to 30 years than they absorb.
Make of that what you will

I'd love to see a link to that. Not being snarky, I've searched. It seems counterintuitive as that's when they're gaining biomass.

All plants (trees are plants) do respire and do create CO2, and indeed except for some very specific plants do actually create more than they sequester at night, but overall night and day they always sequester more than they create as they increase in mass. It's only when they die and decompose, or are burned, that all of this CO2 is returned. This is why trees can ultimately only be a finite reservoir of carbon, as at some point the rate of creation and that of decomposition of biomass will balance out, as in old forests. A tree dies, gives up carbon, a new one grows in its place and takes it all up again eventually. The more trees the greater the reservoir, but they don't make it disappear. This is why deforestation for purposes other than semi - permanent usage of wood products, such as long lasting furniture, or building materials, is certainly bad in the short term and obviously dependent on ultimate usage of the deforested area, potentially in the long term too. An argument could be made for logging for semi-permanent wood products as long as the land is replanted with trees, as carbon is locked up in the wood products and new trees take up even more. There is little need to mention that the faster a tree grows, the faster it sequesters carbon. And young trees generally grow fast, but as long as a tree is increasing in mass then it is on balance sequstering carbon, there is no threshold below which this does not work. Everything is in proportion to the rate of increase in mass, including the rate of respiration (which creates CO2).

That's not a link.

[bad company]

Tommo87 said:

bad company said:

Dingu said:

What a tragic thread. Fact is the OP would be first in the outrage line spitting his dentures out over his morning Daily Mail if any form of chargeable zone signage was obscured calling it a scam etc etc.

You’ve made several ridiculous assumptions there.

Maybe he has just read one of your many published works…

Maybe the story’s all wrong, maybe the photo’s been photoshopped. All very possible, I really don’t know.

Why such a nasty response from a couple of keyboard warriors though? I was thinking PH is heading rapidly downhill but then it is half term.

[KarlMac]

TBH it looks more like the leftovers from cutting the tree line back to install the palisade fence.

[buggalugs]

MikeGTi said:

That would appear to be here on the M58/M6 Orrell Interchange.



As you can see, there aren't any trees obscuring the sign to begin with. Also, you'd have to pile a lot of tree chippings to be able to get that original photo...

I call shenanigans.

They've taken the photo on zoom or cropped and from a weird angle, back round closer to the roundabout so the trees that are missing were feck all to do with the sign I suspect. Look at where the street light pole is vs the sign on your pic vs the original, then back up until the pole is in the right place if that makes sense. There's loads of trees starting to overhang the barriers round that side of the roundabout in 2021 when the google pics where taken.

Although it's moot now as the implementation of the whole thing has been halted.

Edited by buggalugs on Monday 30th May 14:07

[Tommo87]

bad company said:

Tommo87 said:

bad company said:

Dingu said:

What a tragic thread. Fact is the OP would be first in the outrage line spitting his dentures out over his morning Daily Mail if any form of chargeable zone signage was obscured calling it a scam etc etc.

You’ve made several ridiculous assumptions there.

Maybe he has just read one of your many published works…

Maybe the story’s all wrong, maybe the photo’s been photoshopped. All very possible, I really don’t know.

Why such a nasty response from a couple of keyboard warriors though? I was thinking PH is heading rapidly downhill but then it is half term.

Oh yes, let’s pretend that you are the victim here and you don’t own a mirror.

[Skellum]

Tommo87 said:

Oh yes, let’s pretend that you are the victim here and you don’t own a mirror.

Is this really intended to be read as an adult comment?

[Tommo87]

Skellum said:

Tommo87 said:

Oh yes, let’s pretend that you are the victim here and you don’t own a mirror.

Is this really intended to be read as an adult comment?

No. Merely a factually accurate one.

[Hol]

GranpaB said:

bad company said:

Dingu said:

What a tragic thread. Fact is the OP would be first in the outrage line spitting his dentures out over his morning Daily Mail if any form of chargeable zone signage was obscured calling it a scam etc etc.

You’ve made several ridiculous assumptions there.

Similar to yours with your OP?