CO2 for Dummies - or Plant More Trees!

i am included in the dummies - i am curious and hence, figured it was time to calculate - no opinions, only things and stuff

Preamble

The next post in the series was to be on the not-so-“civil war”. The word “civil” was to be defined and a whole introduction to actual events during that period was to be expanded, similar to previous posts. The post was to be especially focused around this intentional conflict renamed the “civil war” and how it was necessary to shape the minds of the people at the time and future generations. This shaping was to allow for the FED, FRN, Citizenship changes, and how to convert the masses to “residents” and “persons” to ultimately steal their land through the hypothecated debt, assets, labor, etc…

However; given the current “climate” [“pun intended”], the time seemed better spent doing a quick run down of the “sustainability” agenda through the war on carbon.

Cutting to the chase:

Let’s dig immediately into the math, shall we?

Note: If you wish to skip all the math, you can simply read the commentary sections outside the bullet points.

The following will be a stepped set of data points based on data [“NOT from government related publications”] from independent sources between 2021 and now.

• Current CO₂ in the atmosphere = 400 ppm [“parts per million”]

• Metric tons of CO₂ created in fires in 2021 = 1.8 x 10^10 [“10 decimal points to the right - a Sh!t ton of CO₂”]

• Total acres of land burned worldwide in 2021 = 23,000,000 acres

• Metric tons of CO₂ per acre burned = Total CO₂ / Total acres = 782.6087 metric tons

• Tons of CO₂ created from 2021 fires = 23,000,000 x 782.6087 = 18,000,000,000 metric tons

• Number of metric tons of CO₂ per 1 ppm of atmosphere = 7,821,000,000 [“kg to g/mol to tons conversion - the mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kg; the composition of all gases of the atmosphere makes CO₂ molar mass 28.97 g/mol, so the atmosphere consists of 5.1480 / .02897 = 177.7 x 10^18 moles; Hence, 1 ppm is 177.7 x 10^12 moles. A mole of CO₂ has a mass of 44.01 g, so the mass of 1 ppm of CO₂ is 177.7 x 44.01 = 7821 x 10^12 grams or 7.821 billion metric tons”]

• Number of acres required to burn to reach 400 ppm of CO₂ = 7,821,000,000 x 400 = 3.1284^12

• 1 metric ton = 2204.6226 lbs

• Ratio conversion metric versus US ton = 2000 lbs / 2204.6226 lbs = 0.907185

• Number of tons [“changing from metric to US tons”] of CO₂ for 1 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere = 7,821,000,000 from above / 0.907185 = 8,621,176,763 US tons

• Number of ppm created from all acres burned annually = 2.088 ppm [tons of CO₂ from fires / CO₂ per ton that equals 1ppm”]

• 22 MPG Automobile creates 5 tons of CO₂ per year [“average MPG”]

• Grams of CO₂ per mile created per mile per automobile = 400

• Grams of CO₂ per ton = 907,184.7

• Miles traveled per ton of CO₂ = 907,184.7 / 400 = 22667.96175 miles

• Average miles traveled per automobile in America per year = 14,263

• Tons of CO₂ per year per automobile = 14,263 / 2267.96175 = 6.2889 tons of CO₂ per car per year

• Millions of automobiles in operation each year in North America = 175,671,613

• Tons of CO₂ from automobiles per year in North America = 175,671,613 x 6.2889 = 1,104,782,396 tons of CO₂

• ppm of CO₂ created annually for North American automobiles = 1,104,782,396 tons of CO₂ / 8,621,176,763 ppm CO₂ per ton = 0.1281 ppm

So, the amount of ppm of change of the CO₂ in the atmosphere from people driving automobiles, is a whopping 0.1281 ppm annually.

How do trees and vegetation effect this? https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-tree-absorb

• Annual per tree consumption of CO₂ - 22 lbs

• Tons of CO₂ absorbed per tree = 22 / 2000 = 0.011 tons

• Average number of trees on earth: https://8billiontrees.com/trees/how-many-trees-are-in-the-world/ = 3 x 10^12 [“3,000,000,000,000”] = 3 trillion trees

• Tons of CO₂ absorbed annually by trees = 0.011 x 3 trillion = 33,000,000,000 billion tons

• ppm of CO₂ absorbed by trees per year = 33,000,000,000 / 8,621,176,763 ppm per ton = 3.8278 ppm

Annually, there are up to 5 billion new trees planted. However, harvesting accounts for up to 15 billion annually.

• .011 tons of CO₂ x 15,000,000,000 trees = 165,000,000 tons of CO₂ lost from harvesting

• 165,000,000 / 8,621,176,763 ppm per ton = .01914 ppm lost absorption opportunity

• .011 tons of CO₂ x 5,000,000,000 trees planted = 55,000,000 tons of CO₂ added from planting

• 55,000,000 / 8,621,176,763 ppm per ton = .00638 ppm added absorption

Every acre replanted can accommodate up to approximately 500-600 trees.

It is hard to find good data on natural re-forestation. However; it is estimated natural re-forestation could yield over 8 billion metric tons of absorption of CO₂. As demonstrated above, one ppm of CO₂ is approximately 7,821,000,000 metric tons. This is almost a 1-for-1 of new growth and 1 ppm absorption of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

Back to the automobiles - now worldwide:

• Annual cars in use in the world = 1,180,677,016

• Based on similar averages above - tons per year of CO₂ for all cars = 1,180,677,016 x 6.2889 tons per year of CO₂ per car = 7,425,167,676 tons

• ppm generated by all cars annually = 7,425,167,676 / 8,621,176,763 ppm per ton = 0.8613 ppm

Now, let’s look at total CO₂ generated per year:

• Billions of metric tons of CO₂ per year in 2022 = 3.749 x 10^10

• Billions of US tons of CO₂ per year = 4.133 x 10^10

• ppm per year total CO₂ generated = (4.133 x 10^10) / 8,621,176,763 ppm per ton = 4.794 ppm - https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/

• Ratio of ppm of CO₂ absorbed per year by trees = 80% [“3.82ppm / 4.794ppm”]

• Trees required to be planted to be net zero emissions = 756,877,367,871 trees [“does not include other vegetation or home gardens, etc…”]

• Total increase of CO₂ annually at current rates = 4.794-3.828 = 0.966 ppm increase excluding absorption by other vegetation

• % change of CO₂ per year with no tree planting or increase in home gardens and other vegetation = 0.2414%

How many people are on earth?

• As of this week there are approximately - 8,081,503,444 people on the planet

• In the absence of knowing the other vegetation absorption in addition to trees, if we planted the equivalent of 94 trees per each of mankind or planted a garden, or increased the natural vegetation, the emissions would be a negative increase or as a minimum, a net zero increase in CO₂

• That alone - a net zero or reduction in CO₂ - is in reality a bad situation for mankind. It reduces oxygen, and hence impacts oxygen consuming life forms negatively

Obvious Conclusions Based on Actual Data

We actually may need to create more CO_2.

Raw data indicates an annual loss of CO₂, and not an increase; from the logical evaluation of actual facts.

More of mankind and animals is not a bad thing.

Plant some more trees seems obvious. Start a garden. Facilitate green space. Have a family. Support more wildlife.

As the population decreases, we will end up with less and less CO2, thus reducing oxygen for the oxygen consuming life forms.

Based on data from the previous two years, it is easy to see the independent impacts of automobiles and worldwide CO₂ generation separately. This illustrates the impact of each, which are common talking points for the Climate Cultists. Automobiles are minimal in impact compared to all other forms of CO₂ generation, including wild fires. This evaluation could step through the negative impacts of lithium mining all the way through battery disposal and the impacts to the environment and the related diesel consumption to support battery powered vehicles, however, that can be left for another post. The simple summary is - the environmental impact of electric automobiles is substantially in the wrong direction versus the climate cultist talking points.

The current net effect may already be a reduction when taking into account planting, natural re-forestation, and additional vegetation absorption of CO₂.

Basically – trees alone annually make up for 80% of global absorption of CO₂. There is also an increase of vegetation being reported along the borders of the Sahara desert in the last decade. More CO₂, more vegetation. More vegetation, more oxygen.

Fires - both natural and man-made account for way more CO₂ than what man alone creates independent of forest fires.

Vegetation, through the process of photosynthesis of CO₂, water, and sunlight, create oxygen for mankind and other animals, that in turn creates the oxygen to sustain life. Human life and vegetation both co-exist in balance. If one or the other disappears, then the other is at risk of meeting the same fate.

• Total ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere is 400 ppm.

• That is .04% of the total atmosphere.

• This means the total composition change in the atmosphere would be (.04*0.2414) = .009656% change.

• It is estimated through ice core sampling, that the world during the time of dinosaurs had over 2000 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere. [“so, more people, less CO₂?”]

• That is a 5 times increase over the numbers today.

• At .009656% per year increase in CO₂ (not including other absorption methods of vegetation not including trees), it would take 386 years to get to the levels at prehistoric times with no actions.

• That is assuming no other outside influences. This would get us to a CO₂ level when there was a large amount of vegetation on earth and more green space.

What we do not know is the correlation between CO₂ increase and oxygen increase as that relates to the ability to sustain life in the form of oxygen consumers. It may be a very linear/corresponding relationship. Which could mean that, although we may be chasing CO₂, there is a high potential corollary relationship that makes for a net neutral or non-negative impact - ever. In other words, higher CO₂ during the Jurassic age could mean higher ability to create and sustain life for oxygen consumers and the net effect is not negative, but instead self-supporting. But, this concept is NEVER discussed.

The simple conclusion is more vegetation in all forms. It makes logical sense to do more home planting, grow more trees, and to slowly work on general efficiencies. However; up to 2000 ppm CO₂ does not seem to be a problem based on history.

So, what is this “climate change” deal?

Isn’t the climate continuously changing?

Isn’t the only constant is that climate is not constant?

So, what does this adverb-verb catch phrase called “climate change” really mean?

What does net zero carbon [“adverb-adjective-pronoun combination”] really mean?

Looks very similar to the legal-eeze headlines like all other captured media headlines to generate emotional responses rather than good debate and conversation.

Bill Gates Logic - Fighting “Climate Change”

• De-Forest - wants to cut down as much of the forests as possible

• CO₂ Scavaging - Partnering with corporations and governments to physically pull CO₂ from the atmosphere

• Block the Sun - injecting particles into the upper atmosphere to block the sun

Translation

• No CO₂ Absorption - No Photosynthesis - No Oxygen

• No CO₂ Absorption - No Photosynthesis - No Oxygen

• No CO₂ Absorption - No Photosynthesis - No Oxygen

Summary - we all die

Why would Bill Gates want to deforest, scavenge CO₂, and block the sun? It is counter intuitive. We need more CO_2. Why would there be a push for less at home self-sustaining activities? This is the opposite of the actual needs. 15-minute cities cause more problems and de-incentivise the act of actual sustainability on the family level.

So, the only logical conclusion of the “sustainability” goals of net zero carbon emissions from CO₂ generating agents is the reduction to net zero humans.

• We are carbon based life forms

• Net zero carbon, net zero humans

• No CO₂, no life [“no carbon - no life”]

If this were to occur, then many other things are at risk of extinction. No CO₂, no trees and vegetation. No vegetation, no oxygen. The addition of less than 1 ppm created annually versus the consumption per year is equal to a 0.2414% increase of CO₂ per year assuming all other vegetation excluding trees do not consume the balance of the CO₂. Simply put, this is assuming all other vegetation CO₂ absorption is less than 1 ppm annually.

Yet, one of the biggest pushes for technology is based on carbon graphite latices [“graphene”] and structures. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/19/graphene-will-change-the-world-the-boss-using-the-supermaterial-in-the-global-microchip-war

It must be okay to use carbon for building technology and nano-structures, but not for the building blocks of life. Hmmmm…

Something to think about

Before reacting to the propaganda of the day, think about what is being pushed to generate an emotionally charged response; then, do a little digging. You may find that very minor changes as a man or woman can make all the difference long term. It is typically not the sweeping changes by those who think they are in charge. In actuality, they usually caused the problem in the first place.

The elites logic: Identify a problem to create, create said problem, be ready with the solution to said problem. In the meantime, create division to distract us from those who created the problem and division in the first place.

The elites fear: Nothing worse for the powers-who-would-be than the existence of a population who is awake and knows the source of all controversy. If we all knew the source; woe to those who are the source. The remedy imposed by the people could be swift and focused.

But, if they keep the masses divided and confused, then the wheels of discord and power can be moved along; all control is being done while said masses are unaware and silent to the real perpetrators of the chaos.

• Give the masses distractions, shiny objects, perceived benefits and privileges.

• Give them agreements to complete in the form of adhesion contracts which lack definitions or the real intent behind said contracts.

• Give them a few generations of these distractions to lose their focus and their souls. Make the masses put more value on “self” than on children and the future.

• Disconnect them from actual nature and the understanding of how the life cycle actually works.

• Let the masses think they are not in control by creating focused actions of fear and consequences in controlled and publicized methods. [“can you say mandates”]

• Give the masses only a small piece of the puzzle in the form of CO₂ levels only with unconnected changes; and ignore the interrelationships of CO₂ creation, absorption, and conversion for other life sustaining molecules.

When people forget they are the source of all power and are a direct connection to Origin, evil is permitted to subvert and run unchecked.

So, how about planting some trees and a garden instead?

Climate Change - Adverb/Verb phrase. It is an opinion that means nothing as a stand alone phrase. However; it elicits an emotional response. Feel that emotion, work through it, then do something productive to verify the emotion is justified or if your strings are being pulled.

It is a chess game. Are you winning or losing?