If every country were to start cutting trees that are underwater, how many years would they last?

I heard about this on NBC Nightly News last night (6/25). There are approximately 300 million trees underwater as of today. I think that cutting those down instead of deforestation is a good step in the attempt to slow down global warming. What do you think about this? Please star the question.

Cutting underwater raises both logistics and pollution problems. Logistics includes the safety of those cutting.

Waterlogged trees will likely start decaying promptly when exposed to the warmer air, and the lumber from them may not be good. The decay will release the CO2 in them, tho not all instantaneously.

If used for firewood, building lumber, or chipped for chipboard, they will need to be dried thoroughly, which will require time and considerable energy.

If they have to be hauled to get to a usable location, there is considerable fuel used.

They can be made into pulp, perhaps, but it will likely require LOTS of bleaching and other chemical treatment to make good clean pulp for paper, etc. And the spent chemicals will have to be properly disposed of, which takes energy.

Any way I look at it, the dangers and costs of recovery, and the energy involved to make them useful, sounds like it will release lots and lots of CO2 and other gases and chemicals. I would want a pretty detailed analysis by several sets of experts, including safety ones, before feeling such an operation would really have an overall plus side.
Unfortunately, every country can't do this. It's feasible only in the colder reservoirs - like in Canada - because otherwise there is usually too much rot. But it's a good idea, as is salvaging wood from old homes and other buildings. But, as far as a way to slow down global warming, you might want to take a look elsewhere. For one thing, trees are responsible for far less than 25% of CO2 uptake; most photosynthesis is performed by phytoplankton.

For another, responsible forestry can DECREASE CO2 emissions: the natural cycle of forestry includes death of some trees, decomposition, and if need be, nature burns parts of the older forest so that the cycle can begin anew. Decomposition and burning leads to release of all that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere. Managed forests don't succumb to wildfire as easily as unmanaged. And when they do, firefighting has traditionally been funded through timber leases. Chase off the timber industry, and you have an overgrown forest with a large accumulation of deadwood, no firebreaks or access roads, and a vastly underfunded firefighting capability.

Look at what's happening in California - a state which has run off the timber industry. Ever been to Yellowstone? You can still see the effects on what was once a grand and beautiful forest decades after a devastating fire. You can go to the untouched parts of the park where deadwood is piled higher than your head - loads of fuel just waiting for the "right" condition.
I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, you're just another example of why all the misinformation on climate change from every idiot who jumps on this bandwagon driven by Al Gore will be what actually destroys the environment.
There are massive differences between old timbers and modern 'farmed' timbers? Cut down 300 million trees and save totally inferior modern forested timbers? This is sheer madness. There is no comparison between the two

Habitat: Would you be suggesting this if these trees grew on the ground? Are you suggesting that there is no habitat underwater?

Reclamation: prevent deforestation above the ground in an attempt to slow down global warming then use masses of energy and resources to move and transport trees from underwater?

Ever tried to work with modern timber compared to reclaimed timbers? Even those modern timbers purporting to be the highest quality hard woods are totally inferior in every respect; in grain, texture, colour, utility. It is like working with two totally different products. They may be.

We CAN'T know about all of the positive impacts those trees growing underwater are having. Whilst challenging, Viktor Schauberger's theories on trees are definitely worth reading but only time will tell if the man is a genius or crazy.

Plant 300 million trees, wait 50 years, then see if you still want to cut them down.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.

More Questions and Answers:
  • Iran is requiring car makers to make only hybrid cars to lessen their dependence on oil. Will this help?
  • Live Earth?
  • Why is energy released when the nuclear reactions take place?
  • Will the earth die before we stop using fossil fuels ?
  • How much do you know regarding Recycling?
  • Death sentence to people who kill endangered species?
  • Can someone tell me where the trash goes after it is picked up by the garbage truck?
  • Kia rio hybrid fuel consume?
  • How do u you think the Penguins Feel like because of global warming?