I don't have an exact figure but some tens of billions of dollars per year are already being lost from global warming in the forms of worse floods, worse droughts, and more of the most powerful tornadoes and hurricanes. The cost of the damage can be expected to increase as the world warms slowly. Even the intense cold waves this winter just finishing up may have been the result of global warming because global warming makes the entire atmosphere more turbulent. It is like bringing a pot of water to a boil. At first the water begins to move around slowly, then as it heats further, the water moves more and more quickly. Thus, increased movement of the atmosphere might be causing cold air to move down from the arctic more quickly in winter, while then a few months later producing a hotter summer. However, this cold hypothesis needs more evidence. I will note that just like the tobacco companies once hired scientists to dishonestly say that there was no proof that cigarettes cause cancer, even when the evidence of the health effects of smoking was overwhelming, energy companies now hire scientist ( or give research grants) to dishonestly say that the burning of fossil fuels does not cause global warming. The motivation of the energy companies is profit for themselves. Some people are doing very excellent work planting trees here and there, but that is limited because so much land is needed to grow food. Much more CO2 would be pulled out of the atmosphere and locked away in wood of limbs, trunk, and wood, if we replaced field crops and much of the grazing land with food producing trees. The cost of developing food producing trees would be much less than the continuing increase in costs from further global warming would be. I don't know what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere would be sequestered, but it looks like it would be a large percentage over the next century. To make an estimate yourself, visualize or calculate the amount of wood there would be if all land were planted with large trees. Then compare that volume with the volume of the fossil fuels we have been extracting. Since wood contains water, count each tree as pulling out the CO2 produced by about a third to half the volume of the wood in roots, trunk, and branches of the tree. We don't have studies of trees as far as I know but there have been some studies of perennial plants which show that they are more productive than annuals. Annuals have to put a lot of energy into growing roots, stems, and so forth repeatedly each year. However perennials keep roots, and so for from the previous year and only have to add a bit to what they already have. In addition, with a larger better developed root system than annuals, perennials can pull more nutrients out of the soil, and make better use of water. In developing food producing trees, fruiting bodies and so forth would be developed to have various new groups of nutrients, and different flavors. Thus, a tree which would produce a wheat substitute would have an increase in wheat protein, wheat starch, and other wheat nutrients and flavors. In that way, we could replace all our field crops and much grazing land with food producing trees. We could also develop some trees to produce fiber crops, such as a tree which would produce cotton, and another that would produce linen. If we developed trees with very deep roots, then in many areas of the world with dryness problems, the trees could be grown with less irrigation, and could survive droughts with less irrigation. It would be easiest if the governments of the world would just pay for the research and development. However, if they didn't, groups of volunteers with an initial purchase of land and some supplies each year, could develop the trees themselves. Methods of developing plants are easy to learn and do.
More useless data......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................................
I assume that you are unwilling to say why it is useless, because you would not be able to do so. I do think that opponents of solving the global warming crisis are both sincere and intelligent. The energy companies can hire the top advertising executives, and hire a number of scientists who want money more than truth, to put together some publications and arguments which sound good to intelligent people who don't know a lot about the real climate science. Something similar has happened with scams to target the wealthy. Those wealthy are intelligent, and they hire lawyers and accountants, who are very intelligent professionals, to check out the scam investments. However, the scam investments are so good that the lawyers and accountants don't see the scam. It is the same with people opposed to the idea that fossil fuel burning causes global warming. Many people who are so intelligent I would hire them for a research institute. if I could afford to fund a research institute, are nevertheless taken in by the extremely clever scam of rhe energy companies. The energy companies are really good con artists.
Dude, do you know how many threads there are on this. Just more mumbo jumbo IMO. to rehash again why I or why you is silly. Post it in one of the other threads, why rehash one?
I very much doubt that there have been any threads suggesting that we develop new species of trees in order to replace field crops, Therefore, this is not a rehash. Since people are in increasing danger of various kinds, it would be wise to consider a new ideas.
We don't need new trees, we need to STOP RECYCLING PAPER!!!!! Paper from new trees sequesters millions of tons of CO2, is better paper, and new is cheaper than recycling. Environmentalist can't stop contradictory behavior.
The total acreage of land in the US committed to agriculture and livestock production has declined steadily. That said, I do not believe that trees are a viable food source to replace corn or wheat or beef, and therein your premise probably would fail in practice. Trees, however, can reduce carbon, not just in their absorption of CO2, but in reducing the need for energy. By planting the right trees in the right places, one can reduce their need for heating and cooling some. If more people landscaped with energy savings in mind, the aggregate could have some impact on CO2 output as a constraint. Replace shingled roofs, with green roofs (basically plants on the roof) and it goes down more. Build subterranean homes, and it goes down a lot.
Here we are in the 21st century and will still don't understand that some things from the past were far better designed to be compatible with our earth than what we build today. A couple of examples: All of these were energy saving and environmentally friendly.
