Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am not sure if this is precisely what Tominator had in mind, but some trees can indeed increase pollution
<a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/07/07242001/pollution_44398.asp" target=blank>Interesting read</A>
Ahh.. I understand. That is an interesting read. I was thinking along different lines...
I still disagree with the notion that too many trees can cause pollution though. I highly doubt a natural forest has these problems.. It's because nature always strikes a balance. If you planted a whole bunch of trees that produce a lot of ozone in a small area, I can see how there could be a problem. We need to plant things as they're found in nature, not how we like them.
Guess you learn something new everyday. It still irks me that it can even be said like that though. I mean come on.... plantlife is one of the only ways our atmosphere gets recycled... We have far.. far.. worse pollutants than the VOCs plants produce. :Q
Besides, we don't really have any of the bad ones(London Plane, California Sycamore, Liquidamber, Chinese Sweet Gum, Goldenrain Tree, and the Scarlet, Red and Willow Oaks) here, at least not naturally.
And I hardly consider pollen to be a pollutant, even if some people are allergic to it.
We need to stop using trees for paper pulp. It's rediculous. There are
far better sources of pulp than wood.
I also think trees should be considered a semi-renewable resource. They're renewable.. but it takes time. They call a 50 year old tree "mature". Ha! Get real. a 50 year old tree is hardly mature..
maybe if you add another 100 years to it's life, you could consider it an adult.