|
|
|
|
|
|
by _Microft
2376 days ago
|
|
|
Nope, that's outright wrong (and from other replies you should have learned that by now, so why keep reiterating something false?). Anyways... The total amount of carbon in circulation is what matters because that part can end up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it shows its heat capturing effects.
Trees fix carbon while growing and emit it while decomposing but do not change the total amount of carbon in circulation in the long term. Digging up carbon that has been locked away for aeons is what is so damaging. There would be nothing bad about burning oil IF that oil were produced by capturing carbon dioxide. We do not do that. We dig up loads of fossil resources and add them to the cycle. If that explanation was too complicted, here is an easier one: fill a bucket to the brim with water, take a cup and start scooping and pouring back to the bucket. Everything is fine. Now get a second bucket full of water and start pouring into the first (material so far not in circulation is added to it). You see the problem? If you still insist on your view with burning coal and trees being equivalent, then I challenge you to conduct the water-bucket experiment in the middle of your living room. I mean it wouldn't do no harm, right? |
|
|
1. chopping down a tree and burning it
2. digging up a tree and burning it
Both are the same. Calling (1) "green energy" is outright wrong. Want to be green? Burn less carbon. The source of the carbon you're burning is irrelevant.