Thursday, July 27, 2006
An Inconvenient Truth or a Convenient Distortion?
My sister recently sent me a copy of Al Gore’s book, “An Inconvenient Truth” along with the comment, “It is not a political statement, but a deep concern that I'm sure you have as well.”
To so describe this book, which contains page after page of condemnation of the United States, capitalism, and the Bush administration, is at the very least, naive. I have read the book and yes, it does contain some true scientific basis for conclusions about the damage humanity is doing to our environment, but many of the conclusions are politically, rather than scientifically motivated. I have already expressed several opinions earlier in this blog which you can read merely by scrolling down through the various postings. Most importantly, I believe “An Unmentionable Menace! !” to be a far more inclusive and impending danger than global warming can ever be. Global warming is but one small symptom of a whole series of things happening to our planet that portend great danger for humanity and indeed all life on the planet in the immediate future. Most of these dangers are completely ignored because they are far more “inconvenient” and politically unpopular, particularly with the left, than global warming.
Several interesting facts can be gleaned from Al’s book. The graph on pages 30 and 31 and the explanation on page 32 clearly indicates that massive increases in vegetation (in the form of forests) could reverse the upward climb of atmospheric carbon dioxide. With a huge percentage of the earth’s forests already turned into agricultural wasteland, primarily in the tropics, it is quite possible that deforestation and desertification has been the major factor in causing increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is virtually no doubt about this. Unfortunately, those pushing for stricter governmental controls on emissions will completely ignore this major component cause of global warming since responsibility for this falls mostly on the third world. It is also interesting to note that there are only two major nations who have shown increases in forest since 1970. Those two are: Japan and the United States with the US showing the largest increase. This is not mentioned by those who seem to want to blame the US for all the world’s problems including global warming. The truth of the matter is that the US has expended more practical effort to slow global warming and curb CO2 emissions than any other large nation.
One glaring example of manipulation of data and grossly misleading information is shown on the graph of 1000 years of Northern Hemisphere Temperatures. All points before 1850 are based on completely different kinds of data than that after 1850 as evidenced by the sharp peaks and valleys after 1850. Also, since about 1930, there are data shown both above and below the zero line (both red and blue) at the same time. This is an absolute impossibility and calls the accuracy of the entire graph into question. Other graphs I have seen in Scientific American and evidence from the Viking’s 500 year colonization of Greenland indicate that the climate in the northern Atlantic during the period from before 1000 AD until the mid-fourteen hundreds was probably even warmer than it is today. Northern Europe in particular was considerably warmer and supported more southern plants and animals during this period even than today. The Norse colonized two Greenland fjord systems in 984 and held this remote outpost of civilization for almost five hundred years before the onset of the “little ice-age” brought about their demise. They built a cathedral and churches, wrote in Latin and Old Norse, wielded iron tools, raised and stored large quantities of hay, herded farm animals, followed European fashions in clothing–and finally starved to death and vanished.
The “little ice-age” brought about massive crop failures and much starvation in northern Europe as southern plants and animals retreated southward under the onslaught of continuing fiercely cold winters that continued until the mid 1800s. Scientists believe this phenomena was caused by the cessation of flow of the gulf stream in the Atlantic. It is interesting to note that scientists monitoring the Gulf Stream have noted it has slowed to about half it’s normal rate in recent years and that, should it cease to flow, Europe could be in for another “deep freeze.”
In the 1970s scientists expressed the same concern and issued warnings about global cooling and the onset of another ice-age. Information about this including dire warnings if we didn’t do something about it were written in many of the same publications that now warn of global warming. The graph on pages 66 & 67 shows clearly the sudden reversal in CO2 concentration at the end of each ice age coinciding with the melting of the glaciers and sudden rise in temperatures worldwide. Whatever part man’s activities have in this scenario, use of fossil fuels may in fact pale in comparison to the destruction of forests that so efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Pages 221 through 231 clearly indicate this problem. How this data can possibly be used to support use of fossil fuels as virtually the only cause of the rise in CO2 and global warming is beyond my understanding. There is no question but that destruction of forests worldwide is a major factor in both CO2 increases and global warming. Unfortunately, since that part of the problem falls clearly on third world nations and not the U.S. it is never mentioned.
Pages 240 through 245 likewise are not indications of the effects of atmospheric CO2, but of our diversion of rivers which creates desert like conditions in many areas, adding to local warming. The direct actions of mankind, not global warming, is responsible for these tragedies. Likewise, the melting snows of Kilimanjaro are not cause by global warming as indicated on pages 42 through 45, but by the devastating cutting of forests which produced the airborne moisture that once fed the snows on the mountain. In 2004 the British science journal Nature noted this as a fact. In 2004 this was confirmed by major studies reported in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research. They showed that the loss of snow was not caused by global warming, but by the aforementioned deforestation. Mr Gore’s implications were precisely the opposite of the truth.
The Kyoto treaty adhered to by all nations would be an economic disaster for the U.S. and would do virtually nothing to even slow global warming. As environmentalist Peter Roderick states, “I think everybody agrees that Kyoto is really, really hopeless in terms of delivering what the planet needs.” Add to this the statement of former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing–in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
One thing Al got almost right is expressed on pages 214 through 220 – the population explosion. I think the grossly optimistic line of blue on the graph on page 217 shows an unwarranted turn to the right around 2050. I see no indication the population will level off at that number except for massive starvation, murder and mayhem all over the world. Sadly, this may turn out to be the case. A glance through the earlier parts of this blog deals with this in depth. Again, this is not an effect, but a part of the cause of global warming.
Yes this book and probably the movie contains facts which point to problems facing humanity. Unfortunately, distortions and political hype are what the left wing socialists and their cohorts in Hollywood and the media will concentrate on with scare tactics to gain political control and promote their own anti-capitalist, anti-Bush, anti-America agendas.
The following quote sums it up quite fairly, “Improving the environment requires engineering, scientific and economic competence and involvement. The idea that a return to sustenance, communal living is a corrective measure is pure nonsense. Improvement in the natural environment, improved food production and improved quality of life for humans occur only where there is capitalism and the use of synthetic chemicals. In the USA forests have increased by 140 million acres since 1920 with accompanying increases in bird and animal life, and a decrease in soil erosion. (Not to mention the removal of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.) Third World nations (primarily in Africa, Asia and South America) destroy forests only because they lack alternative fuel sources.” (And because of excess population, corrupt socialist dictatorships and self-serving leaders.) ________________________________________________________
The Benefits of Trees
Trees provide a multitude of benefits. Unfortunately, much of the general public is not well informed on this topic. By increasing awareness of the benefits relating to trees, we can all utilize current scientific evidence to help resolve many challenging issues and improve the livability of our cities. Proper tree care and sound forest management programs are crucial to the health, longevity, and sustainability of our urban forests. The care of trees is a wise investment in our future.
A listing of the benefits, in no particular order, would include at least the following:
Air Temperature and Energy Consumption
Trees cool air temperature and help to offset the "heat island" effect of hardscapes by providing shade and by transpiration (the release of water vapor into the air). By properly selecting and planting trees, yearly energy savings can exceed 40%. Three mature shade trees placed strategically around a house can cut air conditioning bills by 10% to 50%.
A single large tree can release up to 400 gallons of water into the atmosphere each day. Water from roots is drawn up to the leaves where it evaporates. The conversion from water to gas absorbs huge amounts of heat, cooling hot city air.
Dallas area neighborhoods with mature trees can be up to 11 degrees cooler than neighborhoods without trees. A one-degree rise in temperature equals a 2% increase in peak electricity consumption.
One simulation found that planting 500,000 trees in the Tucson area would lower the "heat island" effect by 3 degrees and lower overall cooling costs by up to 25%.
Cities are 5 to 9 degrees warmer than rural areas and 3% to 8% of summer electric use goes to compensate for this urban "heat island" effect.
The National Arbor Day Foundation calculates that 100 million additional mature trees in U.S. cities would reduce the "heat island" effect and save $2 billion annually.
Air Quality
Trees produce oxygen and store carbon dioxide (just the opposite of humans), which helps to clean and restore our air. The American Forests organization’s studies foresee the value of the urban forest to U.S. cities to be $10 billion by storing carbon dioxide, cleaning particulate matter, and generating oxygen for urban spaces.
One acre of trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people every day.
One acre of trees absorbs the carbon dioxide produced by driving an automobile 26,000 miles.
A fully-grown Sycamore tree can transform 26 pounds of carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen every year.
Large trees remove 60 to 70 times more pollutants than small trees. Only a small portion of the Dallas area tree population exceeds 24 inches in diameter.
For every ton of wood an urban forest grows, it removes 1.47 tons of carbon dioxide and replaces it with 1.07 tons of oxygen.
A typical tree removes 25 to 45 pounds of carbon from the air each year.
A study of Atlanta’s urban forest showed that intense urban development and subsequent removal of large urban forest areas increased the "heat island" effect. This raised the levels of isoprene emissions, increasing the natural formation of harmful ozone.
An EPA study in Chicago showed that the 23.2% of canopy cover in the Lincoln Park neighborhood adjacent to downtown annually filters 43.9 tons of particulate matter, 14 tons of carbon dioxide, and 12.4 tons of nitrogen oxides, giving the urban forest an estimated pollution abatement value of $625,000 per year.
Water/Soil
Planting trees along streams, wetlands, and lakes, helps control storm water runoff, removes soil sediment, reduces flood damage, and increases water quality, by reducing the pollution of the water runoff by as much as 80%.
Healthy, vegetated stream buffer zones reduce the total suspended solids phosphorus, nitrogen and heavy metal transfer between urban areas and streams by 55% to 99%.
Numerous studies show that trees along streams increase fish populations.
The urban forest reduces erosion. One square mile of forestland produces 50 tons of erosion sediment. In contrast, farmland produces 1,000 to 50,000 tons, and land prepared for construction produces 25,000 to 50,000 tons of sediment per year.
Tree canopy, in one study, reduced surface runoff from a one-inch rain over a 12 hour period by 17%.
In natural watersheds with trees and vegetation, 5% to 15% of stream flow is delivered as surface storm water runoff. In highly developed areas, over 50% of stream flow is delivered as surface storm water runoff.
Animal Habitat
Trees attract wildlife to an area by supporting habitat and creating biodiversity.
Trees provide food and shelter for wildlife.
Economics, Health, and Psychological and Social Behavior
Trees offer unlimited climbing challenges and good physical activity opportunities such as tree swings and tree houses.
Numerous trees and plants have proven useful in phytoremediation or removal of toxic materials from soils.
Trees can become living witnesses to our history and evidence of our cultures. Without a cultural history, people are rootless. Preserving historical trees offers lingering evidence to remind people of what they once were, who they are, what they are, and where they are. Trees feed our sense of history and purpose.
Studies across the nation show that residential home prices increase from 3% to 20% due to the presence of trees, depending on the type of trees, scarcity of treed lots, and the maturity of existing trees.
One widely reported study showed that viewing trees through a window during surgery recovery cut the average recovery time by almost one whole day compared to patients with a view of a blank wall.
People turn to the urban forest, preserved by humans as parks, wilderness, or wildlife refuges, for something they cannot get in a built environment. The quality of human life depends on an ecologically sustainable and aesthetically pleasing physical environment. The surge of interest in conserving open spaces from people motivated by ecological and aesthetic concerns is growing.
Trees curtail health care costs by facilitating positive emotional, intellectual, and social experiences.
Environmental stress may involve psychological emotions such as frustration, anger, fear and coping responses; plus associated physiological responses that use energy and contribute to fatigue. Many who live or commute in urban or blighted areas experience environmental stress. Trees in urban setting have a restorative effect that releases the tensions of modern life. Evidence demonstrating the therapeutic value of natural settings has emerged in physiological and psychological studies. The cost of environmental stress in terms of work-days lost and medical care is likely to be substantially greater than the cost of providing and maintaining trees, parks, and urban forestry programs.
Trees are a source of food for humans, i.e. Pecans, Walnuts, Almonds, etc. On a large scale, trees require less fertilizer and keep the soil healthier than most crops.
Aesthetics
Trees can screen objectionable views, offer privacy, reduce glare and light reflection, offer a sound barrier (acoustical control), and help guide wind direction and speed.
Trees offer aesthetic functions such as creating a background, framing a view, complementing architecture, and bringing natural elements into urban surroundings.
_______________________________________________
Here are links to sites with much accurate information.
Http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC805E/ac805e0s.htm
26. Trading forest carbon to promote the adoption of reduced impact logging
Joyotee Smith and Grahame Applegate*
* Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia, Tel. +62 (251) 622 622. Fax +62 (251) 622 100, E- mail: e.smith@cgiar.org and href="mailto:g.applegate@cgiar.org">g.applegate@cgiar.org
http://cordis.europa.eu/euroabstracts/en/october01/feature01.htm
"Europe has the best-equipped network for measuring carbon dioxide in the world."
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/products/Table_of_contents_land_use%20(Canadell_Zhou_Noble2003)/Alexandrov_yc0109.pdf
Net Biome production of managed forests in Japan.
http://www.the-tree.org.uk/TreeTalk/News/newsarchive.htm
Bits of information about trees and their benefits.
http://secure.britannica.com/ebi/article-9310969
Britannica article about deforestation.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
FAQ Global changes
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01491.htm
Ask a Scientist (Argonne National Lab) ¶ 3:46 PM
To so describe this book, which contains page after page of condemnation of the United States, capitalism, and the Bush administration, is at the very least, naive. I have read the book and yes, it does contain some true scientific basis for conclusions about the damage humanity is doing to our environment, but many of the conclusions are politically, rather than scientifically motivated. I have already expressed several opinions earlier in this blog which you can read merely by scrolling down through the various postings. Most importantly, I believe “An Unmentionable Menace! !” to be a far more inclusive and impending danger than global warming can ever be. Global warming is but one small symptom of a whole series of things happening to our planet that portend great danger for humanity and indeed all life on the planet in the immediate future. Most of these dangers are completely ignored because they are far more “inconvenient” and politically unpopular, particularly with the left, than global warming.
Several interesting facts can be gleaned from Al’s book. The graph on pages 30 and 31 and the explanation on page 32 clearly indicates that massive increases in vegetation (in the form of forests) could reverse the upward climb of atmospheric carbon dioxide. With a huge percentage of the earth’s forests already turned into agricultural wasteland, primarily in the tropics, it is quite possible that deforestation and desertification has been the major factor in causing increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is virtually no doubt about this. Unfortunately, those pushing for stricter governmental controls on emissions will completely ignore this major component cause of global warming since responsibility for this falls mostly on the third world. It is also interesting to note that there are only two major nations who have shown increases in forest since 1970. Those two are: Japan and the United States with the US showing the largest increase. This is not mentioned by those who seem to want to blame the US for all the world’s problems including global warming. The truth of the matter is that the US has expended more practical effort to slow global warming and curb CO2 emissions than any other large nation.
One glaring example of manipulation of data and grossly misleading information is shown on the graph of 1000 years of Northern Hemisphere Temperatures. All points before 1850 are based on completely different kinds of data than that after 1850 as evidenced by the sharp peaks and valleys after 1850. Also, since about 1930, there are data shown both above and below the zero line (both red and blue) at the same time. This is an absolute impossibility and calls the accuracy of the entire graph into question. Other graphs I have seen in Scientific American and evidence from the Viking’s 500 year colonization of Greenland indicate that the climate in the northern Atlantic during the period from before 1000 AD until the mid-fourteen hundreds was probably even warmer than it is today. Northern Europe in particular was considerably warmer and supported more southern plants and animals during this period even than today. The Norse colonized two Greenland fjord systems in 984 and held this remote outpost of civilization for almost five hundred years before the onset of the “little ice-age” brought about their demise. They built a cathedral and churches, wrote in Latin and Old Norse, wielded iron tools, raised and stored large quantities of hay, herded farm animals, followed European fashions in clothing–and finally starved to death and vanished.
The “little ice-age” brought about massive crop failures and much starvation in northern Europe as southern plants and animals retreated southward under the onslaught of continuing fiercely cold winters that continued until the mid 1800s. Scientists believe this phenomena was caused by the cessation of flow of the gulf stream in the Atlantic. It is interesting to note that scientists monitoring the Gulf Stream have noted it has slowed to about half it’s normal rate in recent years and that, should it cease to flow, Europe could be in for another “deep freeze.”
In the 1970s scientists expressed the same concern and issued warnings about global cooling and the onset of another ice-age. Information about this including dire warnings if we didn’t do something about it were written in many of the same publications that now warn of global warming. The graph on pages 66 & 67 shows clearly the sudden reversal in CO2 concentration at the end of each ice age coinciding with the melting of the glaciers and sudden rise in temperatures worldwide. Whatever part man’s activities have in this scenario, use of fossil fuels may in fact pale in comparison to the destruction of forests that so efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Pages 221 through 231 clearly indicate this problem. How this data can possibly be used to support use of fossil fuels as virtually the only cause of the rise in CO2 and global warming is beyond my understanding. There is no question but that destruction of forests worldwide is a major factor in both CO2 increases and global warming. Unfortunately, since that part of the problem falls clearly on third world nations and not the U.S. it is never mentioned.
Pages 240 through 245 likewise are not indications of the effects of atmospheric CO2, but of our diversion of rivers which creates desert like conditions in many areas, adding to local warming. The direct actions of mankind, not global warming, is responsible for these tragedies. Likewise, the melting snows of Kilimanjaro are not cause by global warming as indicated on pages 42 through 45, but by the devastating cutting of forests which produced the airborne moisture that once fed the snows on the mountain. In 2004 the British science journal Nature noted this as a fact. In 2004 this was confirmed by major studies reported in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research. They showed that the loss of snow was not caused by global warming, but by the aforementioned deforestation. Mr Gore’s implications were precisely the opposite of the truth.
The Kyoto treaty adhered to by all nations would be an economic disaster for the U.S. and would do virtually nothing to even slow global warming. As environmentalist Peter Roderick states, “I think everybody agrees that Kyoto is really, really hopeless in terms of delivering what the planet needs.” Add to this the statement of former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing–in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
One thing Al got almost right is expressed on pages 214 through 220 – the population explosion. I think the grossly optimistic line of blue on the graph on page 217 shows an unwarranted turn to the right around 2050. I see no indication the population will level off at that number except for massive starvation, murder and mayhem all over the world. Sadly, this may turn out to be the case. A glance through the earlier parts of this blog deals with this in depth. Again, this is not an effect, but a part of the cause of global warming.
Yes this book and probably the movie contains facts which point to problems facing humanity. Unfortunately, distortions and political hype are what the left wing socialists and their cohorts in Hollywood and the media will concentrate on with scare tactics to gain political control and promote their own anti-capitalist, anti-Bush, anti-America agendas.
The following quote sums it up quite fairly, “Improving the environment requires engineering, scientific and economic competence and involvement. The idea that a return to sustenance, communal living is a corrective measure is pure nonsense. Improvement in the natural environment, improved food production and improved quality of life for humans occur only where there is capitalism and the use of synthetic chemicals. In the USA forests have increased by 140 million acres since 1920 with accompanying increases in bird and animal life, and a decrease in soil erosion. (Not to mention the removal of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.) Third World nations (primarily in Africa, Asia and South America) destroy forests only because they lack alternative fuel sources.” (And because of excess population, corrupt socialist dictatorships and self-serving leaders.) ________________________________________________________
The Benefits of Trees
Trees provide a multitude of benefits. Unfortunately, much of the general public is not well informed on this topic. By increasing awareness of the benefits relating to trees, we can all utilize current scientific evidence to help resolve many challenging issues and improve the livability of our cities. Proper tree care and sound forest management programs are crucial to the health, longevity, and sustainability of our urban forests. The care of trees is a wise investment in our future.
A listing of the benefits, in no particular order, would include at least the following:
Air Temperature and Energy Consumption
Trees cool air temperature and help to offset the "heat island" effect of hardscapes by providing shade and by transpiration (the release of water vapor into the air). By properly selecting and planting trees, yearly energy savings can exceed 40%. Three mature shade trees placed strategically around a house can cut air conditioning bills by 10% to 50%.
A single large tree can release up to 400 gallons of water into the atmosphere each day. Water from roots is drawn up to the leaves where it evaporates. The conversion from water to gas absorbs huge amounts of heat, cooling hot city air.
Dallas area neighborhoods with mature trees can be up to 11 degrees cooler than neighborhoods without trees. A one-degree rise in temperature equals a 2% increase in peak electricity consumption.
One simulation found that planting 500,000 trees in the Tucson area would lower the "heat island" effect by 3 degrees and lower overall cooling costs by up to 25%.
Cities are 5 to 9 degrees warmer than rural areas and 3% to 8% of summer electric use goes to compensate for this urban "heat island" effect.
The National Arbor Day Foundation calculates that 100 million additional mature trees in U.S. cities would reduce the "heat island" effect and save $2 billion annually.
Air Quality
Trees produce oxygen and store carbon dioxide (just the opposite of humans), which helps to clean and restore our air. The American Forests organization’s studies foresee the value of the urban forest to U.S. cities to be $10 billion by storing carbon dioxide, cleaning particulate matter, and generating oxygen for urban spaces.
One acre of trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people every day.
One acre of trees absorbs the carbon dioxide produced by driving an automobile 26,000 miles.
A fully-grown Sycamore tree can transform 26 pounds of carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen every year.
Large trees remove 60 to 70 times more pollutants than small trees. Only a small portion of the Dallas area tree population exceeds 24 inches in diameter.
For every ton of wood an urban forest grows, it removes 1.47 tons of carbon dioxide and replaces it with 1.07 tons of oxygen.
A typical tree removes 25 to 45 pounds of carbon from the air each year.
A study of Atlanta’s urban forest showed that intense urban development and subsequent removal of large urban forest areas increased the "heat island" effect. This raised the levels of isoprene emissions, increasing the natural formation of harmful ozone.
An EPA study in Chicago showed that the 23.2% of canopy cover in the Lincoln Park neighborhood adjacent to downtown annually filters 43.9 tons of particulate matter, 14 tons of carbon dioxide, and 12.4 tons of nitrogen oxides, giving the urban forest an estimated pollution abatement value of $625,000 per year.
Water/Soil
Planting trees along streams, wetlands, and lakes, helps control storm water runoff, removes soil sediment, reduces flood damage, and increases water quality, by reducing the pollution of the water runoff by as much as 80%.
Healthy, vegetated stream buffer zones reduce the total suspended solids phosphorus, nitrogen and heavy metal transfer between urban areas and streams by 55% to 99%.
Numerous studies show that trees along streams increase fish populations.
The urban forest reduces erosion. One square mile of forestland produces 50 tons of erosion sediment. In contrast, farmland produces 1,000 to 50,000 tons, and land prepared for construction produces 25,000 to 50,000 tons of sediment per year.
Tree canopy, in one study, reduced surface runoff from a one-inch rain over a 12 hour period by 17%.
In natural watersheds with trees and vegetation, 5% to 15% of stream flow is delivered as surface storm water runoff. In highly developed areas, over 50% of stream flow is delivered as surface storm water runoff.
Animal Habitat
Trees attract wildlife to an area by supporting habitat and creating biodiversity.
Trees provide food and shelter for wildlife.
Economics, Health, and Psychological and Social Behavior
Trees offer unlimited climbing challenges and good physical activity opportunities such as tree swings and tree houses.
Numerous trees and plants have proven useful in phytoremediation or removal of toxic materials from soils.
Trees can become living witnesses to our history and evidence of our cultures. Without a cultural history, people are rootless. Preserving historical trees offers lingering evidence to remind people of what they once were, who they are, what they are, and where they are. Trees feed our sense of history and purpose.
Studies across the nation show that residential home prices increase from 3% to 20% due to the presence of trees, depending on the type of trees, scarcity of treed lots, and the maturity of existing trees.
One widely reported study showed that viewing trees through a window during surgery recovery cut the average recovery time by almost one whole day compared to patients with a view of a blank wall.
People turn to the urban forest, preserved by humans as parks, wilderness, or wildlife refuges, for something they cannot get in a built environment. The quality of human life depends on an ecologically sustainable and aesthetically pleasing physical environment. The surge of interest in conserving open spaces from people motivated by ecological and aesthetic concerns is growing.
Trees curtail health care costs by facilitating positive emotional, intellectual, and social experiences.
Environmental stress may involve psychological emotions such as frustration, anger, fear and coping responses; plus associated physiological responses that use energy and contribute to fatigue. Many who live or commute in urban or blighted areas experience environmental stress. Trees in urban setting have a restorative effect that releases the tensions of modern life. Evidence demonstrating the therapeutic value of natural settings has emerged in physiological and psychological studies. The cost of environmental stress in terms of work-days lost and medical care is likely to be substantially greater than the cost of providing and maintaining trees, parks, and urban forestry programs.
Trees are a source of food for humans, i.e. Pecans, Walnuts, Almonds, etc. On a large scale, trees require less fertilizer and keep the soil healthier than most crops.
Aesthetics
Trees can screen objectionable views, offer privacy, reduce glare and light reflection, offer a sound barrier (acoustical control), and help guide wind direction and speed.
Trees offer aesthetic functions such as creating a background, framing a view, complementing architecture, and bringing natural elements into urban surroundings.
_______________________________________________
Here are links to sites with much accurate information.
Http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC805E/ac805e0s.htm
26. Trading forest carbon to promote the adoption of reduced impact logging
Joyotee Smith and Grahame Applegate*
* Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia, Tel. +62 (251) 622 622. Fax +62 (251) 622 100, E- mail: e.smith@cgiar.org and href="mailto:g.applegate@cgiar.org">g.applegate@cgiar.org
http://cordis.europa.eu/euroabstracts/en/october01/feature01.htm
"Europe has the best-equipped network for measuring carbon dioxide in the world."
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/products/Table_of_contents_land_use%20(Canadell_Zhou_Noble2003)/Alexandrov_yc0109.pdf
Net Biome production of managed forests in Japan.
http://www.the-tree.org.uk/TreeTalk/News/newsarchive.htm
Bits of information about trees and their benefits.
http://secure.britannica.com/ebi/article-9310969
Britannica article about deforestation.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
FAQ Global changes
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01491.htm
Ask a Scientist (Argonne National Lab) ¶ 3:46 PM
