Yeah, that's when it is more like a theme park.
Interestingly enough, in the US, there are more trees now than in 1492. The invaders from Europe had a thing for lumber and shade and planted a bunch of them in the Plains. They even got the government in on it and got free land for planting trees. Sure enough, enough of them trees in close proximity and they got to breeding. Now they're all over what used to be pristine grasslands.
www.bbc.com
I don’t know how he knows CO2 emissions aren’t harmful, but I do know from his statement he didn’t read this, or like publications.
We’re killing those tropical trees we’re counting on to absorb carbon dioxide
“If a tree lives 500 years, it carries the carbon assimilated and stocked for the last 500 years,” says Giuliano Locosselli, a researcher at the University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil. “If instead, the tree lives 300 years, it means the carbon will be stocked by 200 years less. So we are...news.mongabay.com
Interesting article. And that is the paradox of CO2 based on geologic history, the global warming has consistently preceded changes in CO2. We all talk about climate change denials, but many climatologists themselves are in denial, and will not allow paleontologists, geologists or geophysics to peer review their research papers.Here's one explanation...
Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes!
The new convention is to refer to "global warming" (something many have told us to worry about) as "climate change" (meaning pretty much the same thing since it's supposed to be bad and caused by us anyway). The main difference appears to be that climate change is even worse, since [...]www.forbes.com
Everyone could learn a lot by reading the “Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes” article.
"—in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or 34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares— or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States— was in forest land. Today’s forest land area amounts to about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630. Since 1630, about 120 million hectares of forest land have been converted to other uses—mainly agricultural. More than 75 percent of the net conversion to other uses occurred in the 19th century."
There very well may be more trees than there were 450 years ago in the U.S. due to lumber plantations. But they are not healthy forest, and not as large a biomass as what was here back then.
Obviously this is a sound theory. But when in reality, (if) rapid climate change causes unpredictability in regional climates, including already observed localized trends to distinctly hotter, cooler, wetter OR drier, local plants can't react that quickly. Instead the native flora are more likely to be decimated by abrupt changes, invalidating your theory. So it would seem, anyway. I suppose if mankind wants to import invasive species all around the world as tailored to new climate regimes, we could theoretically absorb some more CO2. But it's not like eons-old native tree species are going to love a rapid change in climate and respond by growing aggressively. We're already seeing the opposite, sadly.