County should preserve trees & greenspace to offest growing pollution

Editor:

I'll admit that I am a tree lover. I'll also admit I liked the Rolling Stones in my college days. I'm still a natural resources lover, and now I am once again a renewed Rolling Stones fan. Why? According to a Discover article, the Rolling Stones signed on to two forestry projects in Scotland, which would plant 2,800 trees, one for every 60 fans in the audience, and thus render the entire tour "carbon neutral" in order to try to protect the environment, and also get the public to begin thinking about not only preserving trees, but planting more for the future.

One would have to wonder how trees could possibly help remove all the carbon dioxide produced by the lights, amps, and the cars, jets, etc. of thousands of fans and the Stones getting to the concert. However, it is true. Trees do serve an extremely valuable role in helping get rid of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. They used a scientific formula to calculate the number of trees needed.

Discover had more information on how trees can remove carbon dioxide produced from all our worldly conveniences like TVs, refrigerators, phones, computers and other household appliances, and our vehicles. Consider this: In America, 33 percent of all greenhouse gases come from sources under our direct control - our houses and cars. One person produces 17,422 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.

It takes 34 hardwood trees to offset the 28,350 pounds of carbon dioxide created by only one single family household. It takes 31 hardwood trees to offset the 26,500 pounds of carbon dioxide created by two family vehicles. The hardwood trees are most effective when they are 25 years old. An acre of hardwood trees removes 2.2 tons of carbon dioxide yearly. An acre of softwood trees removes 5 tons of carbon dioxide a year at their peak of 15 years old.

I spoke with a residential developer recently and expressed my sorrow at seeing so many trees clear-cut for development. The response was "But where are you going to put the houses if you don't cut down the trees?" My response was, of course, "bigger lots so houses can be squeezed between trees, rather than squeezing large numbers of houses on every inch of land made available by clear-cutting acres of trees."

With Columbia County continuing to grow at a rapid pace with housing and commercial development and the traffic that comes with it, doesn't it make sense to try to preserve as many trees and as much greenspace as possible to try to offset the pollution?

Just like the Stones, I know I won't "get no satisfaction" and have to accept that it is a losing battle for me and our trees. Trees will continue "to go" as our county continues "to grow," and I will be "driving in my car" and listening to the Stones on "my radio." I hope the trees in our yard, the flat-screen computer being used to type this letter and which uses 70 percent less energy than CRTs, and our hybrid car will help offset the carbon dioxide my husband and I send into the atmosphere.

Jeri Whitworth

Evans