[johntheexpat]

So Greenpeace e-mailed me this:


Dear John

We know that burning coal is the single greatest threat to our climate. We also know that the new coal-fired power station planned for Kingsnorth will output as much CO2 each year as the world's 30 least polluting countries combined.

Yet the government is still planning to build more coal-fired power stations.

This will blow any chance the UK has of cutting emissions by more than 80% by 2050 - our share of what is needed to avoid disastrous climate change.

To make sure this doesn't happen we desperately need your support.

Please click here to add your boot print to the map now and join the growing movement of people across the UK urging Gordon Brown to GIVE COAL THE BOOT!

Thank you.



So they want you to sign up on this very emotive issue, without offering any alternatives.

For GreenPeaces information, I will happily sign their petition if they agree to come up with a plausible plan to ensure that the UK doesn't run into an electricity crisis in the coming years.
So that'll be nuclear power then? I'll sign up to that, ie less coal/more nuclear, because I think nuclear power is going to underpin the power needs of the 21st Century.
Somehow I don't think they'll agree!

[whatsupdoc]

This global warming/climate change nonsense is evolving into a religion.

How long before we have a war over it?

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by whatsupdoc

This global warming/climate change nonsense is evolving into a religion.

How long before we have a war over it?

A science based religion? Interesting.

[insomniak123]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

A science based religion? Interesting.

no, they said "global warming/climate change nonsense", nothing to do with science

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by insomniak123

no, they said "global warming/climate change nonsense", nothing to do with science

So the science behind Global Warming is OK, but the nonsense (ie denial of the science because 'they' don't like it) is a religion?

That would make sense. Religion is an act of faith, with no basis, just like the denial of the science because people don't like it. ergo Denial of climate change is like religion.
I like your point of view!

[Stephen Wilde]

I'm inclined to agree with johntheexpat on this issue.

If adequate energy supplies are in place for us and the poor of the world then a precautionary abandonment of high emission technology would make sense even if CO2 is not the real cause of warming or climate change.

The trouble is that the nuclear option also introduces a can of polluting worms so that if CO2 really is not the problem then it would be better to stick with coal until a better alternative is found.

A nasty conundrum, but in the end insufficient energy will kill more people than 'dirty' energy and it may be that coal is not so 'dirty' as nuclear or other methods if the CO2 concern is misplaced.

[DOBLY]

What's wrong with diverting the funding from coal to something like wind, solar or tidal - I think that that is what Greenpeace are advocating.
If micro or local solar technologies were improved and rolled out to all new builds along with vastly improved energy efficiency standards for homes (insulation etc.), I would hazard a guess that there would be no need for a new coal powered facility. Certainly, if the last 20 years new housing had been built to better standards of energy efficiency, insulation and compulsory micro power generation, there would be no need to add additional "dirty" power stations.
If all new house roofs that faced towards the sun had to contain enough photovoltaic cells to power 50% of the households electrical requirement, that would be a good start wouldn't it? Similarly, if all new houses had to employ solar collectors for hot water on their roof.........
For commercial buildings, it is in the interests of the owners to make them as energy efficient as possible, perhaps even making the site a net contributor to the grid by utilising the roof area for energy collection / generation.
Local heat and power is the way forward - not building more enormous pollution factories.

[dakara]

RIGHT ON JOHN

Aren't the Green Groupies opposed to Wind Turbines on the grounds that they will kill all the birds with their whirling blades, and that they look "ugly", and spoil the view.
Considering the very slow speed at which they rotate, it would have to be an extremely stupid bird that flew into them, and as to spoiling the view, I actually think that they look quite elegant, and a small price to pay for having cleaner air.

[SyStemDeMoN]

i agree, i think windmills look lovely, while driving back thru france, i was in awe of the massive windmills along the motorway. VERY IMPRESSIVE.

im not going into if i belive in GW/CG or not, u can find that out if u check other threads like this, but neuclear has to be the way, its a lot safer than it was 10-20yrs ago, and much more efficiant.

[johntheexpat]

I sometimes feel Greenpeace are against everything. They do lots and lots of high profile opposing and seem to offer very little in the way of positive contribution.

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

The trouble is that the nuclear option also introduces a can of polluting worms so that if CO2 really is not the problem then it would be better to stick with coal until a better alternative is found.

If we take a step back and look at the problem as though we are starting from scratch, which really is the more polluting?

The case for coal is massively bolstered by the fact that we have been brought up with these things, so familiarity breeds, not necessarily contempt, but unwarranted acceptance.
Coal, kills many in the mines, which when closed produce appalling pollution of their own. Apart from CO2, burning coal releases huge quantities of heavy metal pollutants straight into the atmosphere. Drax belches out over a tonne of Uranium every year, because it is a trace element in coal. A recent New Scientist report informed us that people in America are suffering from mercury poisoning because they eat too much fish, and the sea is polluted by mercury emissions from Coal power stations.
You name your heavy metal and somewhere it will be implicated in coal burning. The stuff is filthy-horrible and we live with it because that is what we have always done.
Nuclear power, I would say, is overall, less polluting. The only quibble I have with Stephen quote is perhaps he left out a word. I would have said the nuclear option also introduces a can of potentially polluting worms.
As for the esthetics of wind farms, each to their own. I like them. But the nuclear power station at Avoine, near Chinon, is nearly 40 miles away and the plume is clearly visible most days. The plume, I was once told, is actually used as a navigation aid by pilots of small aircraft flying out of Nantes, which is perhaps 100 miles from it. How visually polluting is that?

[nvingo]

Originally Posted by dakara

Considering the very slow speed at which they rotate, it would have to be an extremely stupid bird that flew into them, and as to spoiling the view, I actually think that they look quite elegant, and a small price to pay for having cleaner air.

I like (prefer to massive coal/gas/nuclear buildings) them too, but the size of the blades does mean that even at the slow RPM the tips are travelling VERY fast. If they are a danger to flying birds, some scarecrow mechanism should be added. Although other NIMBY opposers cite noise as being their reason, so are birds deaf?

[Sonic67]

I once worked out how many wind turbines it would take to replace a large coal fired station. Something like 300-400 turbines working flat out, plus more as they won't all be working flat out anyway so you will need more to make up the short fall so call it around 600-700 turbines. After that you will also need roads to them for maintenance vehicles and various substations and pylons in the area.

I think some people see half a dozen turbines on the top of a hill and think that will be all that's needed.

[MattJ11]

It's actually rather more than that. The output of a typical large coal-fired power station is around 2000MW (Drax is about twice that, but it isn't typical). Commercial wind turbines vary a lot, but a typical onshore one is about 1.5 - 2MW, with the larger offshore ones more like 3MW, and a few produce as much as 5MW. So if you take an average of around 2.5MW, you would need about 800 wind turbines at full output to replace one coal-fired power station. Nuclear stations are typically a bit smaller, with a twin-unit station producing about 1200MW, so that's about 480 large wind turbines. However a well-designed nuclear station can achieve a load factor of around 90%, whereas an onshore wind turbine will only manage about 30%, and offshore ones around 40%. So to produce the same energy output over a year, you would need about 1000 - 1500 wind turbines to replace one nuke.
Personally I'm not against wind power - I agree with the previous posts that they are impressive and elegant pieces of engineering. We can see one from our house, and I think it adds to, rather than detracts from the landscape. However if there were literally hundreds of them stretched across the horizon I would feel rather differently. As an engineer I think we need to be more realistic about how much they can actually contribute to the global warming problem, and the extent of the environmental downside.
On a separate minor point, a previous post mentioned the plume from a certain French power station. I should point out that this would not apply to any new UK nuclear station, since all the potential build sites are on the coast and would employ sea-water cooling rather than cooling towers - so there would be no plume of vapour.

[nheather]

If Greenpeace are so focussed on CO2 emission targets they should be welcoming nuclear power with open arms.

The waste is an issue accepted, but I think it is the only viable short\medium term solution.

Personally I think wind, wave, hydro, geo-thermal are all very interesting but can't and won't be able to deliver quantities required.

Hydrogen cells are interesting - this could be the way forward for road vehicles.

Perhaps in the longer term we can learn how to harness solar energy better.

Cheers,

Nigel

[leedswillprevai]

Come on guys this is a scam in so many ways. Supposing for one second that genetically modified crops were not a ticking time bomb, that depleted uranium was actually harmless, that dumping toxic chemicals into the sea poisoning the water supply was not an issue and so on and that carbon dioxide really was the greatest threat to this planets very existence, it would still make no difference in trying to fight it. The outsourcing of manufacturing to China and India means that pollution levels will rise and indeed this was witnessed during the olympics. China isn't going to sign up to any protocol and so instead what you are left with is a "feel good factor" you think you are doing your bit for the environment when the main reason for the corporations and government concentrating on this, is so it can be taxed and regulated.

Of course there is money to be made in this to that is why at the superbowl of all places corporations were showing a "greener side". So we aren't concerned about a radioactive waste ground that has been created in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and god knows how many other places and yet we are concerned by carbon dioxide. Living in an upside down world certainly makes things interesting.

Proposals of carbon taxes are afoot and somehow that makes all the real poisons and deadly chemicals in usage alright....please! Mind you this kind of third grade propaganda from the media should not come as a surprise as I read yesterday that inflation was around 4%, yeah tell that to everyone else's weekly shopping basket lol.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

.. So we aren't concerned about a radioactive waste ground that has been created in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and god knows how many other places and yet we are concerned by carbon dioxide. ...

The difference is that radioactive or other pollution is a localised phenomenon with only localised effects (ok so the Chernobyl effect was felt all the way to Wales, but it was still fairly localised). If the scientists are right about Global warming and Climate Change, then there is nothing localised about it, the whole planet will be affected, one way or the other. That's the difference. We can get by with localised hot spots of pollution, but the thinking is that CC and GW will affect the whole plant, from the North Pole to the South Pole and all points in between.

[leedswillprevai]

The effects of depleted uranium have been felt all over europe via the prevailing winds. It's one of the many reasons why so many in Iraq and Afghanistan are born with horrible deformities, it's the reason why so many soldiers are suffering with cancer and or lung problems, what do you think that is doing to the vegetation? to the fish life. I have no doubt that planet earth is under attack but it's under attack from the same groups who then masquerade as the crusaders out to save planet earth.

Poison in the cleaning products, fluoride in the water, the toxic crap in the mould remover, mercury in the energy saving light bulbs it's all a joke. It's the reason why I don't take any of this seriously because if you really were to contemplate everything which is toxic, things you take for granted, then you really would freak out.

Note it's not depleted uranium in it's pure form which causes the carnage and devastation but when a shell is fired for instance it atomises and breaks into millions of very fine particles it is then that the prevailing winds can carry these particles across the world and it is then that they get inhaled.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

The effects of depleted uranium have been felt all over europe via the prevailing winds. It's one of the many reasons why so many in Iraq and Afghanistan are born with horrible deformities, it's the reason why so many soldiers are suffering with cancer and or lung problems,

After being in the Gulf War as a tank driver in 91 and again serving in Bosnia I was invited to take part in a survey paid for by the Government. Part of my role in Iraq did involve climbing into dead Iraqi tanks to check for booby traps so they could then be looked over by Int.

I agreed to the testing and was sent a large container and then had to travel, expenses paid to a university doing the testing. I had to pee in the container for 24 hours and nowhere else and then take this container of urine with me. This was then put into a centrifuge to see if there was any depleted uranium in my body. There wasn't (or at least any amount was too low to be tested). So if they can't find it in a guy climbing into blown up tanks and you can then add the two tours of Bosnia I had done as well...

For Iraq war vets gulf war syndrome could be due to a combination of things. Pre deployment I was given a variety of the usual vaccines like cholera etc all in quick succession, then in theatre there was the taking of NAPS (Nerve Agent Pre-treatment Set) tablets, and also in theatre I had vaccines against Anthrax, smallpox and plague (-this one was awful), then there was the use of insecticide sprays on tents and eating areas and all the general pollution from Saddam burning oil wells. The combination of the lot might have an effect.

Regarding the babies been worn in such countries it may be a combination of poor diet, and poor health care maybe even a lot of tribal and cultural effects meaning people are marrying their second cousin or someone from at least the same village.

[leedswillprevai]

Sonic I am glad that you were not poisoned by DU but if you are using that as the basis for saying that DU is harmless, then you are very much mistaken. I know all about how the army tell you about depleted uranium but tell you it's harmless because it's only alpha radiation because I have 3 friends in the army. That line to reassure soldiers is a fraud, it doesn't need to seep into the skin, it's inhaled!

Now as for dismissing DU, perhaps you might want to read what Dr Doug Rokke has to say on the subject, he was the guy appointed by the american army to clean up the mess created after the first gulf war. Now we know that depleted uranium is being felt all over europe because of the readings and indeed the question has been asked in parliament before but was dismissed by the defence secretary because naturally government tells the truth and inflation really is around 4%.

[Sonic67]

So this conspiracy theory involves the MOD, a lot of scientists, a university and a lot of money. Meanwhile your basis is something you read. Incidentantly they did also say that now the method has been perfected you can have the results checked privately. Also been inside a blown up tank is as close as you will ever get. Inhalation or absorbtion. Thanks for playing.

[Sonic67]

A bit more on this.

First for you this is a chance to have a little spout on a web forum. For me it is my own personal health and a chance to get a huge payout from the Government. So believe me if I thought there was any chance of proving that DU was a bad thing I've far more incentive than you will ever have.

So since Gulf War syndrome first appeared I've been following the various stuff printed closely. Personally I think the problem is likely to be down to the use of insecticides. I spent all more time in the desert eating ration packs and sleeping in a roll of class 60 rather than be near eating areas and tents that were being sprayed. Health wise I've had no problems. Neither has anyone else we knew. Which is why I think it's down to insecticides being used on those eating from mess areas and in tentage. Most we had was a fly swat.

We were involved in two nights of fighting together with the checking of vehicles afterwards. This was because the kit was largely soviet type and Int wanted to get up close to the kit. We'd then drag them behind the tank to shake them up as much as possible and then check them out for booby traps. Once we were happy they were safe we dragged the vehicles to a holding area and Int then had a look at them. After that I did two tours of Bosnia and DU shells were used by aircraft like the A10 when NATO got involved against the Serbs.

As for radiation in Europe you do know it occurs naturally don't you? Mainly in the South East of England though is also elsewhere. Wales has some hotspots as well. (Look up Radon gas in the UK.) And that there's been a few nuclear power stations both in the UK and Cherynobl that has also been far better at spreading radiation about. However I have no problem with nuclear power. Those power stations were from a 50's design.

DU Test Finds UK Troops Uranium Free ( A test developed by a team led by a Uni...)

A test developed by a team led by a University of Leicester geologist was recently used by the UK government’s Independent Depleted Uranium// Oversight Board to detect exposure of UK troops to depleted uranium (DU) during the 1991 Gulf Conflict.

Randall Parrish, Professor of Isotope Geology, developed the test with Postdoctoral Fellow Dr Axel Gerdes, who now works at the University of Frankfurt, Germany, and his colleague Matt Horstwood at the British Geological Survey, using advanced mass spectrometry.

Prof Parrish’s team has tested more than 350 individuals as part of the programme, with the result that none so far tested had any demonstrable DU exposure resulting from their participation in the 1991 Gulf Conflict, though the extent of actual initial exposure of tested individuals to DU is unknown...

...The test was designed to detect after 15 years even a modest exposure to DU, on the basis of accepted knowledge about the retention and solubility of DU in the human body. The test is applicable even to those who excrete extremely low levels of uranium in urine.

Also I can remember my Chemistry classes at school. Alpha and Beta radiation was stopped by a piece of A4 paper. Gamma radiation went through. Radiation in small quantities happens all the time.

Did you know the SUSAT sight on the SA80 also contains a radioactive source? It contains Tritium to make the tip of the pointer glow at night.

[leedswillprevai]

Do you know what the definition of ignorance is and of naivety it's this idea that anything outside of an official line is somehow a "conspiracy theory". It is the reason we are in the mess we are today, it is the reason why the banks are able to play god with the worlds money, lose it run up huge derivative contracts which have gone bad, take trillions off the tax payer and then turn around and blame it on the sub prime market. Anyways that is a side issue and going back to this one.....

From The Sunday Times
February 19, 2006
UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells
Mark Gould and Jon Ungoed-Thomas
RADIATION detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere after the “shock and awe” bombing campaign against Iraq, according to a report.

Environmental scientists who uncovered the figures through freedom of information laws say it is evidence that depleted uranium from the shells was carried by wind currents to Britain.

Government officials, however, say the sharp rise in uranium detected by radiation monitors in Berkshire was a coincidence and probably came from local sources.

The results from testing stations at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston and four other stations within a 10-mile radius were obtained by Chris Busby, of Liverpool University’s department of human anatomy and cell biology.

Each detector recorded a significant rise in uranium levels during the Gulf war bombing campaign in March 2003. The reading from a park in Reading was high enough for the Environment Agency to be alerted.

Busby, who has advised the government on radiation and is a founder of Green Audit, the environmental consultancy, believes “uranium aerosols” from Iraq were widely dispersed in the atmosphere and blown across Europe.

“This research shows that rather than remaining near the target as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away,” he said.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) countered that it was “unfeasible” depleted uranium could have travelled so far. Radiation experts also said that other environmental sources were more likely to blame.

The “shock and awe” campaign was one of the most devastating assaults in modern warfare. In the first 24-hour period more than 1,500 bombs and missiles were dropped on Baghdad.

During the conflict A10 “tankbuster” planes — which use munitions containing depleted uranium — fired 300,000 rounds. The substance — dubbed a “silver bullet” because of its ability to pierce heavy tank armour — is controversial because of its potential effect on human health. Critics say it is chemically toxic and can cause cancer, and Iraqi doctors reported a marked rise in cancer cases after it was used in the first Gulf conflict.

The American and British governments say depleted uranium is relatively harmless, however. The Royal Society, the UK’s academy of science, has also said the risk from depleted uranium is “very low” for soldiers and people in a conflict zone.

Busby’s report shows that within nine days of the start of the Iraq war on March 19, 2003, higher levels of uranium were picked up on five sites in Berkshire. On two occasions, levels exceeded the threshold at which the Environment Agency must be informed, though within safety limits. The report says weather conditions over the war period showed a consistent flow of air from Iraq northwards.

Brian Spratt, who chaired the Royal Society’s report, cast doubt on depleted uranium as a source but said it could have come from natural uranium in the massive amounts of soil kicked up by shock and awe.

Other experts said local environmental sources, such as a power station, were more likely at fault. The Environment Agency said detectors at other sites did not record a similar increase, which suggested a local source.

A MoD spokesman said the uranium was of a “natural origin” and there was no evidence that depleted uranium had reached Britain from Iraq.

[johntheexpat]

Seems we are about to come full circle on this one!

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Apart from CO2, burning coal releases huge quantities of heavy metal pollutants straight into the atmosphere. Drax belches out over a tonne of Uranium every year, because it is a trace element in coal.

Without a much more detailed look at the research, it is hard to say if the spike in Uranium detected was due to the Gulf War or an unhappy coincidence that the wind was blowing pollution from European and eastern block coal power stations.
It is undeniable that alpha radiation can kill, as was shown by the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, but more research needs to be done before depleted uranium is in the frame for anything. The level of radioactivity will be minute, (detectable but still tiny) and I have not heard anyhting about Uranium being intensely toxic, but I may be wrong.
Interesting debate though.

[Sonic67]

Well after Chernobyl it was so bad that tests were done on sheep here in case they were eating irradiated grass and detectors went off in Sweden. Though that was a huge reactor going into meltdown and not some shells being fired 3000 miles away.

Even the source you quote 'as evidence' is dubious on it.

Aside from that regardless of the risks it's the best shell going for taking out a tank. If you are in a war you want the best weapon possible. DU shells punch through any armour other shells can be defeated. Usually by the use of reactive armour. Would you rather that DU shells weren't used and more of our people died in combat? Do you want to fight an environmentally friendly war? Do you want to ban the best anti tank shell going because a few people think there might be a problem with them?

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

It is undeniable that alpha radiation can kill, as was shown by the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning,

True but that comes under ingestion. Skin is quite resistant. We do CBRN training (used to be called NBC) and keeping fallout dust etc out of cuts and wounds and the mouth etc is a priority as radiation is a lot more effective once inside the body. Having said that even the deaths from the use of a 'dirty' bomb are expected to be low. The main effect is the publics fear of their use. You'd probably get a similar number of deaths/casualties from the use of a conventional bomb.

[leedswillprevai]

Their concern is that it does the job, they don't give a damn what happens to you operation shad cough cough. As for the idea of it being dubious, i guess you must see it all as mere coincidence, also known as a coincidence theorist which is by the way another ridiculous terms, in reality, these terms are just ad hominem attacks.

My point is we are exposed to poisons all the time and there isn't a war on that, most people don't bat an eyelid about it. All of the focus is on the "deadly" carbon dioxide but if you take that to it's extreme conclusion, you would have to chop down trees also because they emit carbon dioxide to. Going back to my original point, if anything aggregate pollution levels will rocket upwards because the work is being outsourced to slave labour. Therefore all of the feel good facto "lets cut my footprint" aren't going to make a difference anyway and secondly, many of these people pushing this, have multi million dollar shares in so many corporations responsible for real pollution.

It's all just a con, meanwhile the banks loot the entire economy, governments nationalise the majority of financial institutions and pension funds disappear. As for "oh those poor africans" oil companies pay mercenaries to kill and drive out villagers so they explore for oil. In addition, good crops are taken from the people and are replaced by coffee plantations and then they have the nerve to tell us that if we don't act now, then africa will be under threat!

All of this is just a distraction which serves a tiny few and hurts the many but of course the majority of people think they are doing the right thing and actually trust the politicians so the bs continues. Anyways cheers guys, my intention was to never attack any of you, merely to make my point and now i have done so, i will cease.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

Their concern is that it does the job, they don't give a damn what happens to you operation shad cough cough. As for the idea of it being dubious, i guess you must see it all as mere coincidence, also known as a coincidence theorist which is by the way another ridiculous terms, in reality, these terms are just ad hominem attacks.

Well that's wrong on so many levels. High casualties can mean wars don't happen. Every death in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the news. So there's the political effect of deaths if nothing else. It might seem like we have a lot of deaths these days but they are nothing like on the scale of the past and the public wouldn't cope with them. Also as we have a volunteer army troops can leave any time they feel the situation is beyond what's expected of them. Troops with low morale aren't effective. It's probably the biggest thing to have on your side. I don't think I've ever met anyone who has a problem with DU in the same way that matelows don't think that being on a nuclear sub full of nuclear missiles will make them glow in the dark.

Believe me take away the DU rounds and for every person who thinks 'that nice' no more DU, many more will think causalties will rise as we no longer have the equipment to do the job. Even if it was proved 100% it was a bad thing a lot of troops would still rather have it as it's the best thing going and would rather worry about any consequencies later.

Take the plague vaccine. The vaccine was available as a voluntary injection and it was unknown if Saddam had the biological weapon or if he'd use it. I choose to have it as I decided at the time I'd rather have a vaccine that was bad than have the real biological weapon used against me and die horribly. The result was I had pain in my joints for 24 hours and I crawled into my sleeping bag for the duration.

With NAPS tablets that gave me back ache and made me pee in the middle of the night. I still thought I'd rather have that than have to cope with a nerve gas attack. I thought maybe I might have problems later in life but at the time I thought what we were facing was troops who'd been in an eight year war with Iran and were all combat vets. Anyway 100% of all people die. So if it's a choice of having tanks with DU rounds or having them with just HEAT or HESH rounds I'd have DU every time. And that's if I thought there was a risk and I don't and I was tested for its presence in me and there was nothing there.

[Inked]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

All of the focus is on the "deadly" carbon dioxide but if you take that to it's extreme conclusion, you would have to chop down trees also because they emit carbon dioxide to.

Trees absorb CO2, not emit it.

[leedswillprevai]

I am sorry but for such a basic fact, i have to respond, research what you just said because trees also emit co2.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

I am sorry but for such a basic fact, i have to respond, research what you just said because trees also emit co2.

They are a net absorber of CO2 while growing. That's where the carbon that makes them up comes from, atmospheric CO2.