Plants worse than SUVs

January 15, 2006 12:34 AM

The forgotten methane source. First, it was the discovery that forests absorb far less CO2 than previously thought. Now, the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, after careful analysis of which organic gases are emitted from plants, have discovered that plants release methane, a greenhouse gas with 23 times the global warming potential of CO2. Equally surprising was that methane formation is not hindered by the presence of oxygen. This goes against all previous assumptions. The researchers estimate that ...about 10 to 30 percent of present annual methane production comes from plants.
posted by three blind mice (19 comments total)

Why do plants hate the environment?!
posted by TwelveTwo at 12:40 AM on January 15, 2006

Somehow, this will be used as a justification to invade Iraq.
posted by frogan at 12:44 AM on January 15, 2006

Double.
posted by The White Hat at 12:44 AM on January 15, 2006

Nonsense. Everyone knows human beings are the only ones responsible for global warming, because we're evil.
posted by nightchrome at 12:48 AM on January 15, 2006

I'm also a forgotten methane source.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:13 AM on January 15, 2006

What The White Hat said. From only 2 days - or a quick scroll down - ago.

For shame.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 1:17 AM on January 15, 2006

Of course, only modern 20th Century plants can alter the atmosphere in this way.

The physiology and chemistry of 19th century plants was so radically different that our current concept of vascular plant metabolism holds no sway.
posted by sourwookie at 1:26 AM on January 15, 2006

Interesting. I remember long ago when President Ronald Reagan made a comment about trees and cows being significant sources of methane, the press and the usual suspects hooted and howled -- saying that only a dunce would believe that.
posted by AJ at 1:42 AM on January 15, 2006

Maybe we should teach plants to light their farts?
posted by zerokey at 1:48 AM on January 15, 2006

Burn them!!!! Or at least pulp 'em for books.
posted by Navek Rednam at 2:22 AM on January 15, 2006

So everytime we buldoze a forest to put in a mini-mall, the earth gets better and better? We can dump an unlimited amount of chemicals into our atmosphere and it will never never have any affect? Good to know!

(BTW, Reagan did not say trees produce "methane." He said, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." He was wrong.)
posted by Jatayu das at 3:00 AM on January 15, 2006

Since there's more forest, at least in North America than at any time since the 1600's, apparently we need to bulldoze faster.

Actually, forests aren't the problem.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:21 AM on January 15, 2006

Make that 1700's, just to be sure...
posted by ParisParamus at 3:24 AM on January 15, 2006

HERE
posted by ParisParamus at 3:35 AM on January 15, 2006

I believe you ParisParamus, I believe you. It is a cruel world out there, but I believe you.
posted by TwelveTwo at 3:40 AM on January 15, 2006

What The White Hat said. From only 2 days - or a quick scroll down - ago.

For shame.

*accepts shame, begs for quick deletion.*
posted by three blind mice at 4:09 AM on January 15, 2006

What Paris means to say is that there are more forests today than the late 1800's - early 1900's. A true but disingenuous fact often sited by anti-environmentalists to say "see, we're doing good!" implying that we're somehow preserving more trees than nature itself would.

The real fact of the matter is that the late 1800's - early 1900's was a time of massive deforestation where something like 80% (or maybe more, I'm too tired to look it up at the moment) was cut down. Massive plains of tree stumps could be seen for miles upon miles upon miles. Learning from our mistakes, we've replanted much of those forests (though I don't think we're back to the pre-deforestation number of trees).

And this would all be fine if it was used to just cite how hey, sometimes we do recognize our mistakes and fix them. However, its almost always used by Conservatives to try and justify more clear cutting for development, lumber, etc . . .
posted by [insert clever name here] at 5:34 AM on January 15, 2006

Gee, I'm an environmentalist, and I cite it to suggest that the US is not the clear-cutting wackoland alot of people represent it to be.
Because exagerating the negatives of someone or someplace, and failing to recognize the positives is both sleazy, and no way to improve things.

In any case, the reforestation of the US is not really the product of enlightened policies: farming just got more efficient, and lots of land stopped being planted.

Now Europe, that's a place that could use more trees!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:40 AM on January 15, 2006

Double posts are just little methane releases onto the front page. Unfortunately, we all let one loose now and then.
posted by caddis at 5:46 AM on January 15, 2006