Air Experts: Trees Pollute More Than Cars

[The Straight Story]

Air Experts: Trees Pollute More Than Cars
Written by Karen Massie, Reporter

SACRAMENTO, CA - The lush green canopy covering the capitol city is the reason Sacramento is known as the City of Trees.

But all those trees and plant also play a major role in the metropolitan area's ranking for having the 12th dirtiest air in the nation.

"Trees emit what's called biogenic volatile organic compounds," said Charles Anderson of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. He explained that's a fancy name for hydrocarbons, a key component of smog.

"The trees emit probably about 80 percent of the total emission in the area," Anderson said. Studies show trees will pump 360 tons of hydrocarbons into the air every day this summer.
"That's four times more than the amount of pollution that comes from cars and trucks," Anderson added.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=40823

[rockymountaindem]

1. Huh?

[The Straight Story]

4. Something about the type of tree

SUV tree's, why oh why do people want bigger trees? To cover up their short comings? :rofl:

[babylonsister]

2. Otherwise known as pollen? nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. ...

:silly:

[NightWatcher]

5. save the planet, cut down the rainforests???

I thought that trees did that whole "carbon dioxide to air" conversion that allows us to breath.

The last time I was in the woods, I cant remember how bad that fresh air made me feel

[The Straight Story]

6. No trees in bars I say

:)

[LaurenG]

7. I probably have 100 trees on and around my home

no wonder I have allergies.

[islandmkl]

8. and the trees say, "F*** you and your polluting, dirty-air-making cars...

WE WERE HERE FIRST!!

[tkmorris]

9. That explains it

I was wondering what caused that cloud of smog I see over any large green forest.

[Fumesucker]

15. I live in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains..

So known for the blue haze that hangs over them in the summertime.

[Matariki]

10. Did someone reanimate Ronald Reagan's corpse?

[BlueIris]

49. Yeah, I was just gonna post, "Sounds like the Reagan claims of 'killer trees' back in 1980."

[cbayer]

11. Those damn trees.

They are always blocking my view and interfering with my TV reception. Those leaves that fall off of them in the autumn are soooo annoying.

During Katrina, it was the trees, not the water, that damaged my house.

And now this. Thanks for the heads up. To the paper mill with all of them, I say.

[NV Whino]

12. Well that does it!

I'm never going to hug another tree.

[lligrd]

13. And They Cause Forest Fires Too

See, * was right. We need to cut them all down. :sarcasm:

[lonestarnot]

20. And they occasionally drop my cats!

[Kurovski]

45. And they get in the way of cars and KILL people!

Let's end their reign of destruction now!

KILLERS!!

[varelse]

14. You don't say... here's more from the same article:

Trees are also known for helping clean up the air. Anderson said, "Ozone can deposit on the leaves of the trees."

Apparently redwood trees actually grab the grit and grim out of the air. "Redwood leaves have a sticky substance on them and the pollutants kind of collect on them and remove them from the air," Anderson said.

Air quality officials suggest that homeowners contact the Sacramento Tree Foundation to find out what trees are best to plant when it comes to reducing pollution.

[orleans]

25. i read somewhere about the dark leaves creating a pollution problem

but the lighter leaves are good.

i forget why--i read it a few months ago and i thought: :wtf:

and i wondered if that was accurate.

[pleah]

16. Where do they find these idiots.

And who in their right mind would believe this shit?:wow:

[coriolis]

17. I will always remember Walter Hickel: "You can't just let nature run wild"

(wolf-killing comments back in the 60s)

:eyes:

[kenny blankenship]

18. they also emit OXYGEN

so unless you want to try living without oxygen-and I can arrange that for you, Mr. Anderson, if you are so inclined-you just leave the fucking trees alone.

Hydrocarbons, which this DOUCHEBAG calls "a component of smog", are natural components of the atmosphere, since even if mankind didn't exist they would come abundantly from plants. Plants, as noted above, are also responsible for the presence of oxygen, all oxygen in the world's atmosphere, which I would be glad to stop flowing into Mr. Anderson's body, if he finds it to be an annoyance. The OTHER thing however that goes into making smog, the "COMPONENT" which he neglected to mention in connection with the natural atmospheric "component", are NITROGEN OXIDES, and those come primarily from our gas and diesel burning vehicles. To say something is a component implies logically the existence of other components, and to speak of one component as if it were the whole is to speak dishonestly. Other industrial processes and power generation contribute to the levels of nitrogen oxides, but most of it comes from our cars.

When you fly into a metropolitan area on an airplane, and you see that characteristic layer of reddish-brown haze, you are looking at nitrogen oxides, a real form of POLLUTION, and the essentially manmade component of "smog". You do not see this in the troposphere of wooded countryside where there are few people and cars. Haze-yes, SMOG? no. The hydrocarbon emissions of trees is in no sense POLLUTION, or a contributor to pollution, until they are mixed with the byproducts of fossil fuel burning, which we humans do on a planetarily significant scale.

[havocmom]

51. And if you plant enough of them in an area, they slow desertification

If you wanna moisten up your surroundings, trees are damn fine wicks.

[eppur_se_muova]

19. OMG! It's the return of Ron Headrest!

[AteAlien]

21. tree poop?

wow. I never would have known.

I think that I shall never see
A tree that starts to poop on me

sorry............

[Canuckistanian]

22. Trees existed LONG before cars

So is this "pollution" a natural phenomenon? If so, than we shouldn't even NOTICE A DIFFERENCE.

And can we say there are MORE of these trees than there were BEFORE human beings?

No?

Then WhoTF is this "Charles Anderson"? A prominent botanist? A climatologist? A part-time janitor at Shell Oil Company? And where are his studies, his data and his conclusions?

Shit, I could go on Channel 10 and say that Squirrels cause brain cancer with LESS evidence.

[The Straight Story]

24. Yeah and the earth was hotter before as well at times :)

We had ice ages and heat waves. All without man even existing.

[Lorien]

38. Have you watched "an inconvient truth"?

if you had, you would understand that today's CO2 levels are unlike ANYTHING this planet has ever experienced before-and planting trees are one of the best ways to absorb excess CO2.

[jpak]

23. Ummm...you need two things to create photochemical smog: VOC and NOx (NO + NO2)

Terrestrial and marine ecosystems DO produce VOC but *very little* NOx...

Fossil fuel combustion, however, produces lots of VOC and lots and lots of NOx.

Natural ecosystems DO NOT produce photochemical smog - it is entirely man-made.

nuff sed...

[Lorien]

26. More Reaganesque bullshit

without trees and ocean flora removing CO2 from the atmospere our planet would be unlivable for most life forms. The rest of the article rightly states:

Trees are also known for helping clean up the air. Anderson said, "Ozone can deposit on the leaves of the trees."

Apparently redwood trees actually grab the grit and grim out of the air. "Redwood leaves have a sticky substance on them and the pollutants kind of collect on them and remove them from the air," Anderson said.

Air quality officials suggest that homeowners contact the Sacramento Tree Foundation to find out what trees are best to plant when it comes to reducing pollution.

"They have arborists who know the best kind of tree you should have and where it's best to plant it," Anderson said. "They'll even come to your home and do follow-up to make sure you're pruning and taking care of it properly."


and from AmericanForests.org:

Air pollution in our cities, and even our suburbs, is a serious concern as we enter the twenty first century. The burning of fossil fuels has introduced a steady flow of deadly pollutants into our atmosphere, yet very few urban areas can meet national clean air standards. Luckily, we are surrounded by efficient air cleaning machines—trees. Trees sequester many pollutants from the atmosphere, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM10).

Dave Nowak, Ph.D., of the USDA Forest Service conducted research in 50 US cities and developed a methodology to assess the air pollution removal capacity of urban forests with respect to the above pollutants. American Forests uses this research to determine the work trees do to clean the air with CITYgreen software—a desktop GIS program that calculates the value of trees to urban environments. The program estimates the amount of pollution being deposited within a given study site based on pollution data from the nearest city then estimates the removal rate based on the area of tree and/or forest canopy coverage on the site.

Air Quality benefits are reported both in lbs removed per year, as well as annual dollar savings. Dollar values for pollutants are based on the median value of the externality costs set by the Public Service Commission in each state.

Trees and Air Quality around the Country
City Pounds of pollutants removed annually by trees Annual value of trees with respect to air pollution
Washington, DC 878,000 $2.1 million
Atlanta, GA Metro Area 19,000,000 $47 million
Portland, OR Metro Area 2,000,000 $4.8 million
Denver, CO Metro Area 1,100,000 $2.6 million

http://www.americanforests.org/graytogreen/air/

[nam78_two]

27. Exactly-I am seeing a lot of this bogus, anti-environmental stuff posted here these days

That article is just such bullshit :eyes:-my hair hurts after reading it. Fortunately most people here won't buy this idiocy-thank God we are not Free Republic. Scientific or logical thinking is anathema to those people.

[The Straight Story]

28. So the people saying this aren't scientists?

The article says they are. I thought we were supposed to trust science?

[nam78_two]

29. I have no idea who Charles Anderson-there is no indication he is a scientist

There is some uncited "research" they refer to in the article-not sure where they get the "more pollution than cars" estimates in terms of numbers or figures. As for science, I am a scientist-you can always find even in science a small body of research that flies in the face of the general, accepted body of knowledge available in the field-it doesn't make it accurate. Yes, 5-10% of scientists out there are incompetent fools (or have made an erroneous finding/interpretation at some point) -but the scientific method is self-correcting -which is why it is useful to refer to the consensus in any field.


So the same way that the Freepers will always find the idiot or bought and paid for oil shill to say global climate change is a myth etc. etc., it doesn't imply that their nonsense
is valid or accurate. That is how the scientific process works-I have seen it in action in my field (which is very removed from the environmental sciences).

But that apart, that article is titled in an extremely misleading manner and the headline is bogus, for all the reasons that all the other posters responding to this article have pointed out.

[The Straight Story]

30. So you are saying this is wrong:

"Research shows trees such as eucalyptus, weeping willow, cottonwood, palm, cork oak, gum and sycamore trees produce a high amount of hydrocarbons. Experts recommend that homeowners plant low hydrocarbon-emitting trees such as Modesto ash, oleander, Bradford pear, cypress, cherry and Italian stone pine."

?

[nam78_two]

32. No I am saying that trees do not produce photochemical smog

A headline like "Trees produce more pollution than cars" is extremely misleading in this context-probably deliberate wording however.

[The Straight Story]

33. So some trees DO produce hydrocarbons

?

[nam78_two]

35. Yes trees do produce hydrocarbons

Isoprenes I think?
Some estimates have set it at 9-10 times the amount produced by automobiles. And there are certainly some trees that are more worth cultivating than others.
But what makes this article so bogus and misleading is the suggestion that trees lead overall to more pollution than cars-trees also take up Carbon Dioxide and respire O2-a supremely important factor. In the net there is no comparison between the harmful effects of automobiles vs. trees. Leave out this important part of the puzzle and I grant you that it is a headline that would have made Ronny Raygun (:puke:) happy.

It is the kind of headline Freepers would jump at though-take one piece of the puzzle, ignore all other factors and throw around bullshit claims :eyes:.

Actually I just noticed that the article itself acknowledges this-though it isn't posted in the snip in the OP.

[The Straight Story]

36. I was not trying to be a dick :)

I had never heard that they did before.

I post from that news site all the time...BUT it does make me ponder a lot of other things when articles like this come up.

Mainly that we have learned (as others did over time...) to trust certain people. Today it is scientists. And while we hear X from them, there is also Y to consider.

If SOME trees are hurting the environment, and we are trying to reduce global warming, shouldn't we also be looking at trees (and other issues) and bringing them to light as much as other things?

Or are we afraid that talking about the truth in a broader way brings up issues that give other people (ie, RW) ammo?

I guess what I am asking is - when does science stop and politics begin?

Reminds me of days of old and priests/kings....

[nam78_two]

37. It is a bit like the story of the 4 blind men and an elephant (?)

Or something like that-I forget the exact details :)? Isolated bits of scientific information can sometimes give a rather misleading interpretation of the picture overall.

[The Straight Story]

39. It reminds me of of what the guy in your Avatar said once about the people of the lake

Some group up in the mountains of Tibet.

He said it did not matter whether YOU believed in the spirits of the Lake, and whether or not they existed.

what mattered was to the people there others traded with DID believe in those spirits. So in that way, they existed because they did exert an influence.

God exists because he/she exerts and influence. This article and it's information is real because it does/will have an influence.

There are trees that may contribute to pollution. That does not mean that we should not take measures outside of them to reduce pollution. One problem does not make another one less valid :)

[NickB79]

46. Hydrocarbons alone are not smog, though

As others have pointed out, clouds of tree-formed hydrocarbons are hazes. Without the addition of nitrogen oxides and ozone like those released from the burning of fossil fuels by humans, you don't have smog like people associate with cities, or the adverse health effects that go with it.

Trees also perspire water through their leaves, forming rain clouds. When that rain interacts with sulfur particles in the air (released by human-constructed coal-fired plants), it can create acid rain. With the logic used in the original article, one could argue that trees create acid rain, which is laughable.

[Zynx]

31. Well shit, let's build 500 coal-fired plants in the area since trees are a bigger problem.

This sort of argument makes me furious.

[alittlelark]

34. More James Watt style BS... Trees BREATHE in CO2, exhaling Oxygen.

Some produce volatile oils, but they have done so for millions of years.


Disturbing propaganda story.

[goodgd_yall]

40. Oh yeah---Let's just ignore the fact that Sacramento has grown immensely

in the past 20 years. It is the cars. I used to be able to see the Sierra Nevada from my backyard and now the sky is too dirty to see them.

What a bunch of crap.

[LeftyMom]

41. Gee, I figured it was the four major freeways that turn into parking lots 4 hours or more a day.

That and all the new housing going in way the fuck out in the boonies.

The air here used to be much better. And there were more trees than people back then, too.

[AlCzervik]

42. no way, it couldn't be that, it must the trees, they are natures terrorists you know!

what a ridiculous article that was, i'm sure the stink tank the oil companies started "The competitive enterprise institute" is behind it.

[DLnyc]

43. Reality Expert: Bullshit.

[names removed]

44. cut down the trees and plant cars instead....

[riverdeep]

47. At the very least this is an extremely misleading headline.

"Trees Pollute More Than Cars" should at the very least be changed to "Some Trees Can Pollute More Than Cars". Even that is distorting things, because it's equating the emanations of cars and trees as equal in forming harmful pollution, but it's a start.

It's these kind of headlines that make 'global warming skeptics' cream in their pants.

Are they doing this as an agenda, or just because shocking headlines are more likely to cause people to read the story?

[MindPilot]

48. I worked on developing automotive smog test procedures in the 70's

That's my cred and here's the deal in very simple terms.

Someone--I think it was james Watt--said something like "the trees along the freeway pollute more than the cars on the freeway." In one sense that is true. Trees do produce huge amounts of atmospheric hydrocarbons. However they are very simple hydrocarbons that break down easily. The ones that come out of your car's tailpipe are complex and tend to rise into upper atmosphere and combine with other chemicals to make smog.

[Orsino]

50. We cannot wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of pollen haze.

We must invade the Caribou-Targhee National Forest now.

And before you liberals shine about the cost of another war, let me remind you that the logging revenues will pay for the operations. We simply cannot afford to send the wrong message to the entomophilists.