The Natural CO2 Cycle

Outside The Beltway
1

According to Statista, the USA emitted 4,970,000,000 metric tons of CO2 last year (up each year since the 2020 Election).

According to the USDA’s Forest Service, there are nearly 300 Billion trees in the USA.

According to the USDA’s Forest Service, the average tree absorbs 48 pounds of CO2 every year.

300,000,000,000 Trees * 48 lbs of CO2 = 14,400,000,000,000 lbs of CO2

14,400,000,000,000 lbs of CO2 / 2000 lbs (Imperial Ton) = 7,200,000,000 Imperial Tons

7,200,000,000 Imperial Tons = 6,531,840,000 Metric Tons

For comparison, the most emissions to ever come out of the USA occurred in 2007, at 6,016,000,000 metric tons.

6,531,840,000 / 4,970,000,000 = 1.31

Our trees absorb 1.31 times more CO2 than our entire CO2 emissions every year? :thinking:

There must be more to factor here, like volcanism and general decay, right? The Statista said TOTAL CO2 emissions. :man_shrugging:

3 Likes
2

dont forget cow farts! because you like meat and milk

interesting analysis

4 Likes
3

Surely cow farts are factored into the TOTAL CO2 Emissions, right? :thinking:

2 Likes
4

yes but not private jets or mansions AC’s

2 Likes
5

But it just might. :wink:

We haven’t even gotten to the other net producers of oxygen, like cyanobacteria, or algae, etc… We’re still just on trees. :thinking:

6

giphy

You’re ruining the hysteria with your data and numbers and stuff!

3 Likes
7

I’m liking these numbers. For example, there’s about 400 trees on my 13 acres of land. According to the USDA’s Forest Service, my land is sequestering about 8.71 Metric Tons of CO2 every year.

For comparison, the Tesla Model 3 holds an 80 kWh lithium-ion battery. CO2 emissions for manufacturing that battery range from 2.4 - 16 Metric Tons.

giphy

3 Likes
8

Do you think they measure the amount of CO2 all 344 m of us emit when we exhale and include it in the total?

You think when they measure CO2 emissions, they estimate or measure all natural sources of atmospheric CO2 generation as well as all industrial uses?

9

Calm down there, triggers. We haven’t even gotten to the algae or cyanobacteria yet. :rofl:

3 Likes
10

I’m calm.

I asked a question.

Do you think they include those things?

Yes or no?

It’s a simple question.

11

If you have other factors to bring in, by all means, stop hyperventilating silly questions at me and contribute something other than your own CO2. lol

Careful doing that basic math though. You know how you libs like to struggle with it. :wink:

3 Likes
12

I think I can keep the math simple. I won’t even use numbers

The amount of atmospheric CO2 is increasing every year.

Therefore, all CO2 generators (human-caused and not) must be producing free CO2 at a rate that exceeds the ability of CO2 sinks to process.

If it was the other way around, the amount of atmospheric CO2 would be decreasing, not increasing.

13

I think jay is making a good point. From reading the Statista report The CO2 emissions they are factoring are from our energy output not naturally occuring CO2 such as humans breating.

To make an accurate calculation would you not have to include all forms of CO2 emission including naturally occuring in nature and for want of a better word artificially from human activity.

Its a fascinating discussion though.

14

Math without numbers, speak your truth.

2 Likes
15

Well the numbers were there…just not explicitly stated.

Here…I’ll make an equation

Delta CO2 (atmosphere) = CO2 (released) - CO2 (absorbed/consumed).

If Delta > 0, then CO2 (released) > CO2 (absorbed/consumed)

So obviously there’s more CO2 being released into the atmosphere than existing CO2 sinks/consumers can take in.

And since trees are but one CO2 sink, it’s not possible that trees can handle all the CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

16

Good thing that point was already made from the start then. :wink:

There is discomfort among the Climate Cult Faithful. lol

4 Likes
17

There are so much that can done with trees. They are already companies working with genetically engineered trees that take in way more carbon than the standard tree. Innovation not taxation will help reduce carbon. Either that or people quit having so many children starting with China and India.

3 Likes
18

So does that mean we still have room to destroy some more rain forests looking for the minerals needed for electric cars?

4 Likes
19

Yes, according to China. Especially in the Congo. :wink:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EA002644

1 Like
20

I am genuinely confused as to what this thread is alluding to or the point it is making.

1 Like