Dumb decision

[*MAD DOG*]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5463653.story

I'm no tree hugger, but to me this is stupid. I know what the air quality is sometimes like in LA.

[tk1971]

I know I'll catch flak for this, but they're just trees.

If everyone is caught up on the size of the replacements, just plant bigger trees.

Setting all this trite/petty nonsense aside, Los Angeles is on the brink of bankruptcy, yet they keep spending money like its free (cutting down trees, and replacing them). Having the space shuttle is cool and all, but I hope whatever revenue they expect from the extra visitors will pay for all for all this trouble.

[*MAD DOG*]

Originally Posted by tk1971

I know I'll catch flak for this, but they're just trees.

If everyone is caught up on the size of the replacements, just plant bigger trees.

Setting all this trite/petty nonsense aside, Los Angeles is on the brink of bankruptcy, yet they keep spending money like its free (cutting down trees, and replacing them). Having the space shuttle is cool and all, but I hope whatever revenue they expect from the extra visitors will pay for all for all this trouble.

Trees = Air Polloution Removers, oxygen creators.

LA = Some of the worlds most polluted air.

LA - 400 Trees = Bad

(Planting 800 undeveloped trees in replacement will take 15-20 years to have the same air filtering effect). Once again, I'm no tree hugger, but even I can see there is a problem here)

Just trees. Just oxygen. Just life......

[Yaristeve]

Originally Posted by *MAD DOG*

Trees = Air Polloution Removers, oxygen creators.

LA = Some of the worlds most polluted air.

LA - 400 Trees = Bad

(Planting 800 undeveloped trees in replacement will take 15-20 years to have the same air filtering effect). Once again, I'm no tree hugger, but even I can see there is a problem here)

Just trees. Just oxygen. Just life......

Heh. When I first glanced at the article, I was wondering why the shuttle landing would necessitate trees to be cut down... It's actually clearance for trucking the shuttle through the streets.. D'Oh!!

From what I've read, young trees are better at producing net oxygen than old trees. So these old trees should be systematically chopped down (and the tree buried so that we can capture the HC gases out of the landfill) and replaced with younger trees anyway...

Most of the complaints I read were centered around street aethestics, not ecology...

[tk1971]

Originally Posted by Yaristeve

Heh. When I first glanced at the article, I was wondering why the shuttle landing would necessitate trees to be cut down... It's actually clearance for trucking the shuttle through the streets.. D'Oh!!

From what I've read, young trees are better at producing net oxygen than old trees. So these old trees should be systematically chopped down (and the tree buried so that we can capture the HC gases out of the landfill) and replaced with younger trees anyway...

Most of the complaints I read were centered around street aethestics, not ecology...

Exactly. People get uptight for just about any petty thing.

[b20vteg]

trees actually do very little to oxygenate the environment... most of the air you're breathing is from algae in the ocean.

unless i'm wrong?

[*MAD DOG*]

Originally Posted by b20vteg

trees actually do very little to oxygenate the environment... most of the air you're breathing is from algae in the ocean.

unless i'm wrong?

Read and learn

http://chemistry.about.com/od/enviro...d-by-trees.htm

Ocean algae creates oxygen, but trees remove carbon dioxide on land and process it, then create oxygen. Last time I checked, we live on land, not ocean, and the majority of air pollution/smog is carbon dioxide.

[b20vteg]

Originally Posted by *MAD DOG*

Last time I checked, we live on land, not ocean, and the majority of air pollution/smog is carbon dioxide.

what about in arid place like deserts where there are no trees? does that mean there's no oxygen in those areas on the the planet? your logic is flawed sir.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by b20vteg

what about in arid place like deserts where there are no trees? does that mean there's no oxygen in those areas on the the planet? your logic is flawed sir.

I hope you aren't that clueless...

[JumpmanYaris]

Originally Posted by b20vteg

trees actually do very little to oxygenate the environment... most of the air you're breathing is from algae in the ocean.

unless i'm wrong?

lmao

[b20vteg]

Originally Posted by JumpmanYaris

lmao

what's so funny?

Originally Posted by Yaristeve

Most of the complaints I read were centered around street aethestics, not ecology...

lol...

[tk1971]

Still just trees. And we're still just people... kinda like fleas on the earth (insignificant).

Even complete nuclear annihilation won't stop the earth from recovering.

It will go on, with or without us, arguably better without us.

Cutting down those trees... a stupid move for sure. But then again, people do stupid things all the time and on a grander scale with farther reaching consequences.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by tk1971

Still just trees. And we're still just people... kinda like fleas on the earth (insignificant).

Even complete nuclear annihilation won't stop the earth from recovering.

It will go on, with or without us, arguably better without us.

Cutting down those trees... a stupid move for sure. But then again, people do stupid things all the time and on a grander scale with farther reaching consequences.

This ^^^^^. I also wonder if pushback from residents (and their economic ability to do so) was taken into consideration at all when finalizing the route.

[tk1971]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

This ^^^^^. I also wonder if pushback from residents (and their economic ability to do so) was taken into consideration at all when finalizing the route.

I doubt it.

I work in a pretty serious environment... big decisions, lots of details and money.

From what I've experienced, people just do the minimum (there are exceptions, of course). Finger pointing is a survival skill.

At the end of the day, when something goes wrong... just don't be the last guy who touched it.

[b20vteg]

lol bro, it takes about 20 trees to produce enough oxygen for one person. just one. you do the math...

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by b20vteg

lol bro, it takes about 20 trees to produce enough oxygen for one person. just one. you do the math...

"lol, bro," you live in Arizona, where do you think the oxygen for the nearly 6.5 million people in that state comes from?

You do breathe, don't you?!?

By the way, the amount of woodland needed to produce enough breathable oxygen for one person is a matter of debate; but many experts agree that a single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs/year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support between 0.5-2 human beings (so from two trees per person to one tree for two people).

Don't go by what you read on WikiAnswers! Try something a bit more substantiated!

Oxygen Production by Urban Trees in the United States

[b20vteg]

Originally Posted by MadMax

"lol, bro," you live in Arizona, where do you think the oxygen for the nearly 6.5 million people in that state comes from?

considering the lack of trees we have here in az, safe to say it's not the trees. could be that algae stuff i mentioned earlier? impressive googling though.

*edit: best case scenario - trees make 20% of the earth's oxygen.

[ilikerice]

Actually gonna agree with b20vteq on this one. half of our oxygen is from the ocean..

here is something you can listen to rather than read. only 10 min long

http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiol...5/war-we-need/

Sorry, had to edit a bit because I had to listen to this again, had a few facts wrong on my original. Edited while I was listening to it