Is it right to suggest that Plants can really change our climate? Will this change be a good thing or a bad thing? Will this climate chage have negative or postive impacts on other species of life apart from hum,an beings? I read an article recently in the UK's Daily Telegraph to suggest that if everyone planted 30 plants in their garden, we could improve the decline of our environment and improve the climate.
Air pollution is an issue that few are ready to tackle. In Japan, however, Toyota is researching horticultural solutions to address this matter. They believe that certain enhanced species of plant life may contribute to improving the environment. How have the British government reacted to these claims?

Hi traveller 123,
I really don’t know where to start with this, let me just say that this planet has continually gone through climatic change since life first emerged.

Having said that Mother Nature has never in the past been subjected to the vast amounts of carbon monoxide and CFC’S that are pumped into her atmosphere. This in conjunction with the decimation of the rain forests which are the lungs of our eco-system have triggered this response.

Multi-national conglomerates are the root cause of approximately 93% of all pollution on this planet. They have no ethics, and they don’t care who knows it, they are a power unto themselves. Into this category you can also place politicians, bankers and stock traders. This group of trough feeders ease the way for multi-national conglomerates to do as they please in the quest of profit.

If you need confirmation of this fact note that the UK government will actively pursue a dole claimant who has tried to get more money than they are due.. This same government has refused to bring to justice the bankers and stock market traders who have left our country with billions of pounds of debt.

The whole carbon footprint scenario is a nonsense created by multi-national companies to make society feel that they are somehow responsible for global warming. It is spin doctor stuff and must be viewed as such. Only they can change what is taking place and that is like telling a junkie to quit the habit, it isn’t going to happen.

I dislike having to lay this information on your doorstep but you need the know the facts of cause and effect relative to your question.

Toyota are involved in GM crop production, can you see where this is going, its not altruism that drives them its profit.

The Daily Telegraph just jogs along as it always has selling papers.

By all means plant your plants, but unless the rape and destruction of the rain forests is stopped climate change will continue to the point of no return.

Please don’t take offence at this post it was written in the hope that you become aware of how the system works and why it works.

What a complete and utter load of crap, CO has nothing whatsoever to do with so called AGW.
Plants absorb CO2 this is what makes them grow, hence the reason tomato growers increase the CO2 concentration in their greenhouses to about 3 times the current atmospheric level.
Increasing the rain forest will help to reduce the CO2 level a bit as well if it actually matters that much.

Forget the stupid emotional hype, half truths and outright lies from people like Al Gore et al and delve into the science, you will find there is as much evidence against AGW as there is for it and given the scandals that are surrounding some of the scientists and their methods at the moment, the situation is far from certain.

In the early 70's there was great panic that we were heading for a climatic calamity, Why? The scientists were absolutely certain that we were heading for an mini ice age, the science was settled they said.

And you notice that everyone is very careful not to mention the effects of growing human populations.

Hi Granity,
Oh my, I did hit a nerve with you, and to answer with such bile and venom, you are obviously a fully paid up member of the flat earth society.

I will not use words like Crap, stupid and emotional to describe your post. I think it is sad, very sad that you can’t see the wood from the trees that are being cut down in these rain forests that are being decimated.

Humbly suggest that you watch the BBC documentary “A Farm For The Future” to see where our future lies, that is if you can find the time to take your head out of the sand,

Hi Beccabunga
How very true, nobody wants to talk about the explosion of population because it is a vote loser. And so we are back to politics again, nothing changes but the faces and the snouts in the money trough.

uriel13

The mind is like a parachute it is totally unless it is open

No you didn't hit a nerve, I just can't stand all the lies and deceit associated with the greens who seem to put out total misinformation to serve their own ends, whatever they may be. AGW is now discredited due to the behaviour of the leading players concerned and there is so much money to be made by people like Gore out of carbon trading they will do anything to perpetuate the theory. Of course for the likes of Brown and his robbing cronies a very good excuse to raise taxes, and, as for the poorer countries, they see it as a good way of screwing free money out of the so called richer ones.

As to your original post it was totally irrelevant to the original question and quite a different problem CO along with SO2 are pollutants and cleaning them up would not be a particularly bad thing, but saving the rain forest won't do that. CO2 is not a pollutant, life cannot exist without it.

Unfortunately the environmental campaigners do overstate the case quite shockingly in some cases. But they have been doing that all the time, so no surprise there. But the current anti-AGW PR is strongly funded by the oil and heavy industrial lobby, and no surprise what they are up to. They are using the same pseudoscientific tactics as they used when they tried to discredit scientists telling us "tobacco is bad for you", "lead is bad for you" and "asbestos is bad for you". Of course the scientists were right. Why would the oil industry not campaign against a movement trying to restrain their output. Of course they will do that. So don't be fooled by them either.

But if we are neutral about it, and look to what scientists are telling us, then the scientific evidence for AGW is pretty incontrovertible. CO2 is a significant atmospheric insulator, demonstrable by experiments going back 150 years. How can a substantial increase in it not warm us up? Here's a bibliography unaffected by dodgy hacked email science and shrill greenpeace campaigners which will take you through it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...l-warming.html

CO2 is a plant fertiliser. So are nitrates. What happens when you put too much nitrate on your fields? Yes it washes into the rivers and sea and creates toxic algal blooms and anoxic dead zones, and kills lots of fish. And we have to process it out of our water supply. The plant fertilisation effect won't take out all the CO2 of an instant. All the CO2 we put in the atmosphere will get washed out in the end. In fact only 40% of what we put out in a single year ends up in the atmosphere at the end of that year. Unfortunately it will take several hundred years to wash it all out, and in the mean time we are at risk of having cooked the place. Too much CO2 will change our climate, and that will be very inconvenient for people who will get flooded out or find they are now living in a desert. They will want to come and move to where you can live, which will be all very costly and frightening to the people who are already there. Think of CO2 reduction as insurance against this happening. CO2 will warm us up, it must do, though precisely how much is not quite clear, because the climate and biological systems are very complex. If it is worth buying flood insurance for your house, it seems to be worth buying climate change insurance for the planet.

Sorry you have been misled by the industrial lobby.