The article published on the website of the newspaper "The Fox News" on
July 10, 2012 is headlined "Answer to speedy tree growth lies in air pollution, Auburn University Study shows". The article reports at length
that pollution is good for the environment. Speaking of this situation
it is necessary to emphasize that while the scientific community
worries about greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, a
new Auburn University study suggests that air pollution may actually be
helping to speed the growth of young, carbon-absorbing forests in the
Southeastern U.S region.
The article quotes Hanqin Tian, a professor at Auburn's School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences and lead author of the study published in the journal "Ecosystems", saying: "Our study actually showed that Southeast carbon uptake is much faster than other regions.This area has trees that are very young and the growth is very fast. So, they uptake more carbon from the atmosphere".
In resolute terms the author of the article expresses the view that, a computer model of the environment set up by the researchers that takes into account natural and man made variables such as land use, climate and pollution in the past century, shows that moderate amounts of air pollution in the form of carbon and nitrogen had a "short term" fertilizing effect on young forests. So, pollution turns out to be good for the environment because "in the short term, it could increase the carbon uptake", and lead to faster forest growth, though "that’s not guaranteed for long".
In this connection it is worth while mentioning the fact that the Auburn study suggests the Southeast is approaching a “tipping point.” The region’s urban areas are growing. And, despite the temporary fertilization effects of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, Tian said increasing levels of other pollutants, such as ground level ozone, threaten to do more harm than good to the environment in the long-term.
The article then quotes as "take-home passage" the conclusion that what Americans really need to do is an "urban/land use planning and also air pollution control to help the Southern U.S. forests to become maybe a sustainable carbon sink."
As for me, it's very surprising that this newspaper along with its correspondent has such beliefs about the environment that are the opposite of truth. They tell us that pollution is good for forests. In other words, it can be that the real pollution is a clear air. It's very strange, and I guess that the editors were off their center when allowed this article to appear in the newspaper.
The article quotes Hanqin Tian, a professor at Auburn's School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences and lead author of the study published in the journal "Ecosystems", saying: "Our study actually showed that Southeast carbon uptake is much faster than other regions.This area has trees that are very young and the growth is very fast. So, they uptake more carbon from the atmosphere".
In resolute terms the author of the article expresses the view that, a computer model of the environment set up by the researchers that takes into account natural and man made variables such as land use, climate and pollution in the past century, shows that moderate amounts of air pollution in the form of carbon and nitrogen had a "short term" fertilizing effect on young forests. So, pollution turns out to be good for the environment because "in the short term, it could increase the carbon uptake", and lead to faster forest growth, though "that’s not guaranteed for long".
In this connection it is worth while mentioning the fact that the Auburn study suggests the Southeast is approaching a “tipping point.” The region’s urban areas are growing. And, despite the temporary fertilization effects of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, Tian said increasing levels of other pollutants, such as ground level ozone, threaten to do more harm than good to the environment in the long-term.
The article then quotes as "take-home passage" the conclusion that what Americans really need to do is an "urban/land use planning and also air pollution control to help the Southern U.S. forests to become maybe a sustainable carbon sink."
As for me, it's very surprising that this newspaper along with its correspondent has such beliefs about the environment that are the opposite of truth. They tell us that pollution is good for forests. In other words, it can be that the real pollution is a clear air. It's very strange, and I guess that the editors were off their center when allowed this article to appear in the newspaper.
Excellent
ОтветитьУдалитьSlips:
the opposite of THE truth ...
the real pollutANT IS SURE (LIKELY) TO BE(no 'a') clear air.