I wonder if the problem of too much carbon dioxide would be better solved with trees in our cities than with trees in the Amazon. I am not a scientist, so I do not understand these things, completely. But, to me, you place the trees where the carbon dioxide is. If the streets of New York are where the carbon dioxide is, that is where you need your trees. In the Amazon, there might be carbon dioxide miles above it in the sky, but how much is right down where the trees can have any effect? What, those trees suck it in from miles away? I'm not a scientist, but this does not make sense to me.
And, I realize you can only put so many trees in New York City. Still, I wonder if we couldn't make some improvement -- plant a few more.
And, plant more in all our cities.
I think of grocery store parking lots, where often we do see trees. Thanks to Walmart and other grocers for planting them. Could they plant more?
I think of Erin Mendenhall, who is a surprise finalist in the race for Salt Lake City mayor. She campaigned on a pro-environment platform. If she is elected, what will she do? More -- if she is elected, what will she be obliged to do? If someone suggests an ordinance saying no new single-family houses without at least one tree, what will she say? How about no new commercial development without accompanying trees?
Some trees take away more carbon dioxide than others. Could we try to get more of them in our urban environments? The trees at Walmart are nice, but would other varieties be more effective?
I do not know if large trees can be replanted. Perhaps you cannot take partially grown redwoods and line them along the interstate -- where all the cars are. But, if you can, it might be worth it.
Tell me this: Why aren't more of our interstates lined with trees? How many are? Of top, I can't remember seeing any. Why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment