No trees have a far bigger impact than reducing pollution. They draw moisture out of deep under ground and react with sunlight, evaporating the water which significantly cools the air down. On top of that it also creates shade. Both, combined, have a massive local impact on the climate - it’s orders of magnitude more powerful than all the world’s carbon emissions (if you are near the tree, anyway).
If you compare the air temperature in a city to surrounding countryside full of trees it is always significantly hotter and drier in the city. That’s not pollution, it’s a lack of trees.
Trees also directly release trace amounts of “sesquiterpenes” into the air which causes water to condense… in other words trees directly increase the number of clouds and directly increase rainfall. So even though they’re pulling water out of the ground they also increase the amount of water in the ground.
Industry is lazy and demands a profit. We could absolutely have advanced technology, a robust industry, and a thriving planet, but rich people need to make as much money as fast as possible.
We don’t even need to stop polluting , just stop polluting at the levels we do.
The comment is about how manufacturers who do the polluting could stop, but no, they won’t. It’s about greed and how we can actually have strong economies that do not destroy the planet, but lazy rich people can’t bothered to be slightly inconvenienced. We absolutely have the technology, but it will cost money and the weak minded billionaires can’t stop exploting everyone and everything.
Not polluting where we live would also work too, but fuck that.
No trees have a far bigger impact than reducing pollution. They draw moisture out of deep under ground and react with sunlight, evaporating the water which significantly cools the air down. On top of that it also creates shade. Both, combined, have a massive local impact on the climate - it’s orders of magnitude more powerful than all the world’s carbon emissions (if you are near the tree, anyway).
If you compare the air temperature in a city to surrounding countryside full of trees it is always significantly hotter and drier in the city. That’s not pollution, it’s a lack of trees.
Trees also directly release trace amounts of “sesquiterpenes” into the air which causes water to condense… in other words trees directly increase the number of clouds and directly increase rainfall. So even though they’re pulling water out of the ground they also increase the amount of water in the ground.
It’s not really an either/or situation.
Industry is lazy and demands a profit. We could absolutely have advanced technology, a robust industry, and a thriving planet, but rich people need to make as much money as fast as possible.
We don’t even need to stop polluting , just stop polluting at the levels we do.
Let’s not pollute anywhere 😎
Nah let’s pollute Pluto, we could even call it Polluto as we laugh at its lack of planetary status.
Hahahahahahaha you’re a fucking genius friend
This sounds like it could be a Futurama plot point, like the trash asteroid.
You cannot really unpollute albedo, this is a built environment issue.
Thinking about what one comments would also work, but hey, here we are with stupid comments like yours getting upvoted like crazy.
The comment is about how manufacturers who do the polluting could stop, but no, they won’t. It’s about greed and how we can actually have strong economies that do not destroy the planet, but lazy rich people can’t bothered to be slightly inconvenienced. We absolutely have the technology, but it will cost money and the weak minded billionaires can’t stop exploting everyone and everything.
So what’s your point? Just being an asshole?