QA问答，为什么我们不能通过种植数百万棵树来减少全球二氧化碳？
Why don't we plant millions of trees to reduce CO₂?
译文简介
实际需要和估算的差了好几个数量级。当人们把地球上所有树木加起来，总数令人震惊——大约有3万亿棵，相当于地球上每个男人、女人和孩子平均拥有400棵树。这其实是一件好事，因为一个人一生所需的氧气，大约需要18棵普通树木来提供。
正文翻译
Steven Haddock
You’re off by a few orders of magnitude.
你们的估算差了好几个数量级。
“Millions of trees” is actually a pretty small number as things go. I live in Toronto, Ontario, which has an area of just a bit over 240 square miles. It has five million trees - about 5 trees for every 3 people.
“数百万棵树”其实从整体来看根本不算多。我住在加拿大多伦多市，安大略省，这座城市面积略超过240平方英里，却拥有五百万棵树——大约每三个人就有五棵树。
When you count up all the trees in the planet, the number is truly staggering - about 3 trillion, or about 400 for every man, woman and child on the planet. That’s a good thing too because it takes about 18 average trees to supply a single human being with oxygen.
当你把地球上所有树木加起来，总数令人震惊——大约有3万亿棵，相当于地球上每个男人、女人和孩子平均拥有400棵树。这其实是一件好事，因为一个人一生所需的氧气，大约需要18棵普通树木来提供。
So, how many extra trees would we need to offset all the current CO2 emissions. This would not “reduce” CO2, just hold it steady at current levels. Human beings emit about 40 billion tons of CO2 every year from fossil fuels, and estimates is that it would take another 1.8 trillion trees to offset that, or about 60% more than already exist.
那么，我们需要额外种植多少棵树，才能抵消当前所有的二氧化碳排放呢？注意，这并不是“减少”二氧化碳，只是让其维持在当前水平不再上升。人类每年因燃烧化石燃料会排放约400亿吨二氧化碳，而据估计，要抵消这些排放，我们需要再增加1.8万亿棵树——这个数量约为现在地球上已有的树木总量的60%多一点。
So let’s say you could plant 900 million trees, which is a reasonable definition of “millions”. You would need to do that about 2,000 times in order to reach 1.8 trillion.
假设你能种下9亿棵树，这已经算是“数百万”的合理上限了。但你仍需要重复这样的规模种植大约2000次，才能达到1.8万亿棵。
Remember 1 billion = 1000 million and 1 trillion = 1000 billion.
请记住：10亿=1000百万，1万亿=10000亿。
And, unfortunately, trees do require certain climactic conditions - they can’t grow where there’s too little water or where it’s too cold.
而且不幸的是，树木生长需要特定的气候条件——在缺水、太冷或海拔过高（也就太冷）的地方，它们无法生长。
Where most of the world’s trees grow. The rest is too dry, too cold, or sometimes too high (and cold).
世界上大多数树木都生长在这些区域。其余地方要么太干、太冷，或者太高（也太冷）。
Luckily though, we’re cutting them down and burning them at a record rate… for… reasons.
可笑的是，我们却正在以创纪录的速度砍伐并焚烧它们……还美其名曰“有原因”。
What’s more important? The future of the planet, or the economy? A single tree can be worth thousands of dollars! That means the world’s trees are worth over a quadrillion dollars and would make us all rich!
到底什么更重要？是地球的未来，还是经济价值？一棵树可能价值数千美元！这意味着全球树木的总价值超过一千万亿美元，足以让我们每个人都变得极其富有！
After all, cutting down forest is what made American great!
And let’s face it, all a tree is is a giant weed!
毕竟，砍伐森林才让美国变得强大！ 而且说到底，一棵树不就是个大型杂草吗！
Giant weeds being cleared for agricultural production. Did you know George Washington complained about how overfarming was ruining once rich soils where forests grew?
这些“大型杂草”正被清除用于农业开发。你知道吗？乔治·华盛顿曾抱怨过度耕作正在破坏原本肥沃、曾生长着森林的土地。
And very recent research shows that forests are not “competing with each other”. They’re all lixed by fungi and actually help each other out. Cutting down a forest completely destroys that, pretty much forever.
而最新的研究显示：森林中的树木并非彼此竞争，它们通过真菌网络相互连接，实际上是在彼此帮助。一旦整片森林被砍伐，这种生态系统将被彻底摧毁，几乎永远无法恢复。
你们的估算差了好几个数量级。
“Millions of trees” is actually a pretty small number as things go. I live in Toronto, Ontario, which has an area of just a bit over 240 square miles. It has five million trees - about 5 trees for every 3 people.
“数百万棵树”其实从整体来看根本不算多。我住在加拿大多伦多市，安大略省，这座城市面积略超过240平方英里，却拥有五百万棵树——大约每三个人就有五棵树。
When you count up all the trees in the planet, the number is truly staggering - about 3 trillion, or about 400 for every man, woman and child on the planet. That’s a good thing too because it takes about 18 average trees to supply a single human being with oxygen.
当你把地球上所有树木加起来，总数令人震惊——大约有3万亿棵，相当于地球上每个男人、女人和孩子平均拥有400棵树。这其实是一件好事，因为一个人一生所需的氧气，大约需要18棵普通树木来提供。
So, how many extra trees would we need to offset all the current CO2 emissions. This would not “reduce” CO2, just hold it steady at current levels. Human beings emit about 40 billion tons of CO2 every year from fossil fuels, and estimates is that it would take another 1.8 trillion trees to offset that, or about 60% more than already exist.
那么，我们需要额外种植多少棵树，才能抵消当前所有的二氧化碳排放呢？注意，这并不是“减少”二氧化碳，只是让其维持在当前水平不再上升。人类每年因燃烧化石燃料会排放约400亿吨二氧化碳，而据估计，要抵消这些排放，我们需要再增加1.8万亿棵树——这个数量约为现在地球上已有的树木总量的60%多一点。
So let’s say you could plant 900 million trees, which is a reasonable definition of “millions”. You would need to do that about 2,000 times in order to reach 1.8 trillion.
假设你能种下9亿棵树，这已经算是“数百万”的合理上限了。但你仍需要重复这样的规模种植大约2000次，才能达到1.8万亿棵。
Remember 1 billion = 1000 million and 1 trillion = 1000 billion.
请记住：10亿=1000百万，1万亿=10000亿。
And, unfortunately, trees do require certain climactic conditions - they can’t grow where there’s too little water or where it’s too cold.
而且不幸的是，树木生长需要特定的气候条件——在缺水、太冷或海拔过高（也就太冷）的地方，它们无法生长。
Where most of the world’s trees grow. The rest is too dry, too cold, or sometimes too high (and cold).
世界上大多数树木都生长在这些区域。其余地方要么太干、太冷，或者太高（也太冷）。
Luckily though, we’re cutting them down and burning them at a record rate… for… reasons.
可笑的是，我们却正在以创纪录的速度砍伐并焚烧它们……还美其名曰“有原因”。
What’s more important? The future of the planet, or the economy? A single tree can be worth thousands of dollars! That means the world’s trees are worth over a quadrillion dollars and would make us all rich!
到底什么更重要？是地球的未来，还是经济价值？一棵树可能价值数千美元！这意味着全球树木的总价值超过一千万亿美元，足以让我们每个人都变得极其富有！
After all, cutting down forest is what made American great!
And let’s face it, all a tree is is a giant weed!
毕竟，砍伐森林才让美国变得强大！ 而且说到底，一棵树不就是个大型杂草吗！
Giant weeds being cleared for agricultural production. Did you know George Washington complained about how overfarming was ruining once rich soils where forests grew?
这些“大型杂草”正被清除用于农业开发。你知道吗？乔治·华盛顿曾抱怨过度耕作正在破坏原本肥沃、曾生长着森林的土地。
And very recent research shows that forests are not “competing with each other”. They’re all lixed by fungi and actually help each other out. Cutting down a forest completely destroys that, pretty much forever.
而最新的研究显示：森林中的树木并非彼此竞争，它们通过真菌网络相互连接，实际上是在彼此帮助。一旦整片森林被砍伐，这种生态系统将被彻底摧毁，几乎永远无法恢复。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 8 )
收藏
Plenty of places do. Like China and India.
有很多地方确实在种树啊，比如中国和印度。
But because it’s not mentioned in western media, apparently it doesn’t happen.
但因为西方媒体不报道，好像这些事就不存在一样。
C Stuart Hardwick
Over the long haul, trees remove zero carbon from the atmosphere.
How can that be, simple: Trees die.
Sure, trees absorb CO2, in fact you can clearly see the annual cycling as the worlds’ tree grow leaves, then lose them. Trees absorb carbon as they grow, but when dead foliage rots, the CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere.
从长远来看，树木对大气中的碳实际上是“零净移除”。
这怎么可能？很简单：树木会死亡。
的确，树木在生长过程中吸收二氧化碳，你甚至能从数据中清晰地看到每年的碳循环波动——随着全球树木长叶和落叶而变化。树木在生长时吸收碳，但当落叶腐烂，二氧化碳又会重新释放回大气中。
And this is true of the trunks, limbs, and roots as well. Plan a forest, and it will absorb CO2 up to a point, but one day, unless you bulldoze all the trees, carbonize them, mix with clay, compress them into pellets and dump them over a geologic subdiction zone, each and every tree will die, rot, and give back to the atmosphere what it’s taken.
树干、树枝和根系也是如此。你种下一片森林，它确实会吸收二氧化碳，但终有一天，除非你把所有树木推倒、碳化、与黏土混合压成颗粒，再扔进地质俯冲带深埋，否则每一棵树最终都会死亡、腐烂，并将它吸收的碳全部还给大气。
And then there’s the issue (as others have pointed out) of scale: The annual variation due to seasonal growth amounts to about 1 ppm. If we assume that the rest of the foliage amounts’ to five times that much, then DOUBLING the amount of forest on Earth would only (temporarily) reduce CO2 levels by a further 5 ppm, or 1/20 the amount industrialization has raised it, or the growth over about a 5 year period.
此外还有规模问题（正如其他人指出的）：每年因季节性生长导致的二氧化碳波动约为1ppm。如果我们假设其他植被的贡献是树木的五倍，那么即使将全球森林面积翻倍，也只能暂时再降低5ppm的二氧化碳——这仅相当于工业化以来二氧化碳上升量的二十分之一，或者大约5年内的增长量。
Call me Davi
because you need trillions and trillions of trees to be planted if you want to reduce CO2 and control climate change and you can’t plant that much trees on earth!
Also your oceans produce more O2 than all the trees combined. You can’t reduce CO2 instantly… you need to take care of the trees you’ve planted for at least 10–20 yrs until they’re mature enough to convert the CO2 into wood and release O2 for living organisms.
因为如果你想通过种树来减少二氧化碳、控制气候变化，你需要种下数万亿甚至更多的树——而地球上根本不可能种下这么多树！
而且，海洋产生的氧气比地球上所有树木加起来还要多。你无法立即减少二氧化碳——你必须照顾你种下的树至少10到20年，直到它们成熟到能有效将二氧化碳转化为木材并释放氧气，供生物使用。
Planting trees is and was never the solution! This is some 1st grade BS delivered by MNC’s and rich fellas to us…. Normal people so that we can feel we’re at fault and it’s our duty to do all this. Of course we should take care of our climate but we should know who’s responsible for the condition earth is in right now? And that are the top 1% people in this world who owns wealth and has the carbon footprint equivalent to millions and millions of people combined!
种树从来就不是解决方案！这不过是一些跨国公司和富豪们向我们这些普通人灌输的“一年级水平”的谎言，让我们误以为问题出在自己身上，以为这是我们的责任。当然，我们应该关心气候，但我们必须清楚，地球今天变成这样，真正的责任在谁？
These billionaires who’re your role models emit so much carbon in one single day that an avg. human can emit in his lifetime! I’m not even saying that avg people with avg. income are at fault here… no! No they’re not.
It’s just these rich guys are the real culprits and they’re responsible for all this.. or at least for the 95% pathetic situation we’re in. These MNC’s owned by these rich billionaires comes up with lame ideas every now and then to control climate change and people even think that oh…. How nice these companies actually care about mother earth… no they don’t!
正是全球最富有的那1%人群，他们拥有的财富和碳足迹，相当于数百万甚至数千万普通人的总和！这些亿万富翁，你们心目中的“人生榜样”，他们一天的碳排放量，可能就是一个普通人一辈子的总量！我并不是说中等收入的普通人有错——不！他们没有错。
正是这些富人才是真正的罪魁祸首，至少95%的环境危机要归咎于他们。这些由富豪拥有的跨国公司，不断推出各种荒谬的“环保”点子，人们还天真地以为：“哇，这些公司真关心地球啊！”——不，他们根本不关心！
I won’t ever tell a undernourished and malnutrition ridden society to control their consumption ever!
How can i say that poor people of Burundi or poor people in INDIA OR PAKISTAN are responsible for climate change? Their carbon footprint is already so limited and their consumption needs to be increased for their betterment and good quality of life!
How can i tell them not to use AC ( if they have) in 40–55’C summers?
How can tell them not to eat this or that when they’re underweight?
That is why… control these billionaires.. the top 1% who makes you feel like you’re responsible when it’s the opposite!
我永远不会去要求一个营养不良、挣扎在温饱线上的社会去“控制消费”！
我怎么能指责布隆迪、印度或巴基斯坦的穷人对气候变化负责？他们的碳足迹本就极低，他们的消费水平甚至需要提高，才能改善生活质量和健康状况！
我怎么能要求他们在40–55°C的酷暑中不使用空调（如果他们有的话）？
我怎么能要求一个体重不足的人“不要吃这个或那个”？
所以，请控制这些富豪、控制那1%的人！正是他们让我们误以为是普通人造成了问题，而事实恰恰相反！
It’s like Leonardo DiCaprio saying …. “ I care about climate while enjoying with under 25 yrs old gals on his cruise ship”
Ask him if he knows his carbon footprint and ask the useless UN agency to at least pick up sensible people for advertising!
这就像莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥一边说“我关心气候”，一边却在豪华游轮上与不到25岁的年轻女性享乐。
你问他知不知道自己的碳足迹有多大？也请那个无用的联合国机构，至少选些真正有资格的人来代言环保吧！
Trees is not the solution. The solution is to control the consumption of top 1% and of those activities which are harming environment and then to just leave and sit back and relax! Remember COVID-19 times??? How everything came back to life? How cities were witnessing animals coming and enjoying here and there? How fresh and clean the Air was for the 1st time ever in life? How blue the sky was and how cool the environment became? Remember all that?
种树不是解决方案。真正的解决方案是：控制那1%富豪的消费行为，以及那些正在破坏环境的活动，然后——请坐下来，安静地让自然恢复吧！还记得新冠疫情时期吗？那时一切都回来了：城市里出现了动物，空气前所未有地清新，天空变得湛蓝，环境变得凉爽宜人。你还记得吗？
Then… that’s your solution! Please don’t try to beat climate change with the help of tech. Because for that you’ll again exploit environment in return… just sit back and control yourself and these rich fat guys!That’s it!
那，才是真正的解决方案！请不要再试图用技术手段“战胜”气候变化了，因为那样只会再次掠夺和破坏环境。
只需停下来，控制欲望，控制那些富豪——就够了！
Eamon Dan
Long story short, there are two kinds of carbon cycle on Earth:
short-term carbon cycle by organism
long-term geological carbon cycle
Compared to 2, 1 is almost insignificant. The largest carbon storage is -CO3 minerals in Earth's crust, followed by soil, fossil fuels, and others. So if human activity interferes 2, which has been happening since we started to use fossil fuel on a massive scale, you simply cannot balance it by 1.
长话短说，地球上有两种碳循环：
1. 生物参与的短期碳循环
2. 地质过程的长期碳循环
与第二种相比，第一种几乎可以忽略不计。地球最大的碳储存库是地壳中的碳酸盐矿物（-CO₃），其次是土壤、化石燃料等。因此，如果人类活动干扰了长期地质碳循环（自大规模使用化石燃料以来一直在发生），你根本无法通过短期生物循环来平衡它。
In addition, among 1, maritime organisms contribute the most, so planting trees helps, but just a tiny little. Speaking of planting trees, millions probably means nothing. You can start the count in billions.
此外，在短期循环中，海洋生物的贡献才是最大的，因此种树确实有帮助，但作用微乎其微。说到种树，“数百万”可能根本不算什么，你得从“十亿”开始计数。
In summary, if you want to lessen the effects on the carbon cycle caused by human activities, you should go with reducing the use of fossil fuels first because that actually helps.
总之，如果你想减轻人类活动对碳循环的影响，首要任务是减少化石燃料的使用——这才是真正有效的办法。
Ken Fabian
It won’t solve the emissions problem and trying that way deprives real solutions of resources and commitment. Carbon offsetting’s primary function appears to be to avoid and delay decarbonizing of energy and industry - ie is done in order to NOT fix the problem. Informed environmentalist “support” for offsetting is more often an unsatisfactory compromise arising from a ‘forest planting this way or not at all’ political policy choice rather than being seen as an effective emissions solution.
植树无法解决排放问题，而试图用这种方式来应对，反而会剥夺真正解决方案所需的资源和承诺。碳抵消的主要功能似乎是为了避免和推迟能源与工业领域的脱碳进程——也就是说，它的存在恰恰是为了“不去解决问题”。环保人士对碳抵消的“支持”，更多时候是一种令人不满的妥协，源于“要么以植树方式来做，要么干脆什么都不做”的政治决策，而不是因为它本身是一种有效的减排手段。
Recovering lost biomass and achieving a new “natural” balance between vegetation and atmospheric Carbon is a good and necessary thing
恢复失去的生物量，并在植被与大气碳之间建立新的“自然”平衡，这是一件好事情，也是必要的。
But until total sustainable biomass exceeds pre-industrial biomass that recovery is not reducing emissions and is not a substitute for actually reducing fossil fuel emissions.
但在可持续的总生物量超过工业化前水平之前，这种恢复并不能减少排放，也不能替代真正削减化石燃料排放的行动。
As an aside, counting trees by numbers planted is not a good measure; whilst tree plantations may aim for maximum numbers surviving to maturity when planting is done to regenerate forest ecosystems many seedling trees get planted in the expectation of only a few achieving maturity. A hundred planted, often mostly shorter lived species, to get one mature forest tree is not unknown. Total tree cover (area) - if not biomass - is more useful.
顺便提一句，仅以“种植了多少棵树”来衡量成效并不科学。尽管人工林可能追求尽可能多的树苗存活并长成大树，但在以恢复森林生态系统为目标的植树项目中，常常会种植大量树苗，预期只有少数能最终成熟。种下一百棵树（其中大多是寿命较短的物种），最终只有一棵能长成森林大树，这种情况并不少见。因此，衡量总树冠覆盖面积（或生物量），比单纯统计种植数量更有意义。
Ernie Wisner
cause you are leaving out an important step, it isnt enough to reduce CO2 temporarily you need to re-sequester the CO2. plant a trillion saplings and it wont do jack shit most of the year cause all the carbon is in the leaves that fall off and let that CO2 off again.
因为你忽略了一个关键步骤：仅仅暂时减少二氧化碳是不够的，你必须将二氧化碳重新封存起来。种下一万亿棵小树苗，一年中大部分时间都毫无作用，因为碳都储存在叶子中，而叶子会脱落，再次释放二氧化碳。
if you want to remove CO2 you have to store it and that REQUIRES letting the trees grow to maturity,
如果你想真正移除二氧化碳，就必须把碳储存起来，而这要求树木必须长到成熟。
so all the planting pecker poles you folks do amounts to jack shit because you cut the saplings down rather than let a tree grow.
所以你们这些人做的所谓“植树”根本毫无意义，因为你们总是把树苗砍掉，而不是让它们长成大树。
its why the anti global warming idiots get away with pointing out that there are more trees east of the mississippi than when the pilgrims showed up. they arent lying exactly they are entirely correct except for the one little detail of a forest of mature trees that spanned 1/2 the continent.
这就是为什么那些反对全球变暖的人能轻易地指出：“如今密西西比河以东的树木比当年清教徒到来时还多。”他们说的并不是谎言，从数量上看他们完全正确——但他们忽略了一个关键细节：当年有一片横跨半个大陆的、由成熟树木组成的原始森林。
folks who complain about how dry places like nevada and utah are getting also fail to understand that forests move water inland so the more logging you do on the coast and the fewer continuous forests of mature trees transpiring the less bulk moisture you will have. people think that the new bloom of the herbaceous layer is removing CO2 when all its doing is absorbing a yearly load and then setting that load off for 6 months. the more you urge clear cutting and the more land you clear the dryer the interior of the continent gets. now while we had forest cover in the US and other places we could absorb some of the change but as we de-tree mature forests world wide we start having water problems and desertification in center continent. all of this intensifies the global warming issues because tree’s arent single function things in nature.
那些抱怨内华达州和犹他州等地越来越干旱的人，也不理解森林会将水分输送到内陆。你在沿海地区砍伐得越多，连续的成熟森林越少，蒸腾作用就越弱，内陆获得的水汽就越少。人们以为草本层的新绿能吸收二氧化碳，但实际上它只是每年吸收一次，半年后又释放回去。你越是鼓吹砍伐清理，清理的土地越多，大陆内部就会变得越干燥。过去美国和其他地方还有森林覆盖时，我们还能吸收一些气候变化的影响；但现在全球范围内成熟森林不断被砍伐，大陆内部开始出现水资源短缺和荒漠化问题。这一切都加剧了全球变暖，因为树木在自然界中并不是单一功能的存在。
Don B
Ever heard of the Arbor Day Foundation?
The Arbor Day Foundation is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization dedicated to planting trees.[2] The Arbor Day Foundation has more than one million members and has planted more than 500 million trees in neighborhoods, communities, cities and forests throughout the world. The Foundation's stated mission is "to inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees."
你们听说过“植树节基金会”（Arbor Day Foundation）吗？
植树节基金会是一个美国的501(c)(3)非营利会员制组织，致力于植树造林。该基金会拥有超过一百万名会员，已在世界各地的社区、城市和森林中种植了超过五亿棵树。基金会的宗旨是“激励人们种植、养护并庆祝树木”。
Steven Faltenovich
Economics - basically you have to make it worth it to people to do it, either financially, or some other metric that could make them feel a “benefit” to it.
关键是经济因素——你必须让人们觉得这么做是“值得的”，无论是通过金钱回报，还是其他能让他们感受到“好处”的方式。
The thing is we do plant trees….most forestry operations in the US these day for example plant more trees than they remove. There are ton of government programs to help people establish their own little forests to help the environment. The problem is if your looking to “fix” the carbon issue its going to require multiple solutions.
事实上，我们确实在种树。比如，如今美国大多数林业作业种植的树木数量都超过了砍伐的数量。政府也有大量项目，帮助人们建立自己的小型森林以改善环境。但问题是，如果你的目标是“解决”碳排放问题，那就需要多种解决方案。
I liked the idea that one of the answers here had about putting solar panels on every roof in america, that wouldn’t fix everything but the sheer reduction on the draw on the US power generation would probably offset us needing to build another power plant for years. Time to come up with better or more efficient methods.
我挺喜欢这里有人提出的“在美国每栋屋顶都安装太阳能板”的想法。这虽然不能解决所有问题，但仅凭大幅减少对美国电力系统的依赖，就可能让我们多年内都不用再建新的发电厂。是时候想出更好或更高效的方法了。
Of course solar panel production has its own share of drawbacks. Trees themselves are not going to fix the carbon problem, they help sure….they also help manage storm water runoff protecting freshwater, stop soil erosion, provide habitat for wildlife the list goes on.
当然，太阳能板的生产本身也有其弊端。树木本身无法解决碳问题，它们确实有帮助——还能管理暴雨径流、保护淡水资源、防止土壤侵蚀、为野生动物提供栖息地，好处还有很多。
Trees are nice, don’t get me wrong I live in the heavily forested western Pennsylivana and I’m a ISA Certified Arborist working for one of the largest tree care companies in the world. I quite literally make my living helping trees grow.
树木很好，别误会，我住在森林茂密的宾夕法尼亚州西部，是一名ISA认证的树木专家，为全球最大的树木养护公司之一工作。我就是靠帮助树木生长来谋生的。
But to really fix carbon you need to present ways to stop generation…real ways, ways people can get behind such as maybe getting rid of fossil fuels all together without actually getting rid of gas burning cars.
但要真正解决碳问题，你必须提出切实可行的“停止排放”的方法——真正的方法，能让人们支持的方法。比如，也许可以完全替代化石燃料，而又不必彻底淘汰燃油汽车。
Gilbert company grows algae with hope of profiting from its many uses
Replacing all fossil fuel usage with renewable biological derived alternatives that won’t require a majorly expensive retooling of major industries. Won’t fix the problem but may help by stopping it from getting worse?
“吉尔伯特公司培育藻类，希望从其多种用途中获利”
用可再生的生物来源替代品全面取代化石燃料，且无需对主要产业进行昂贵的重新改造。这不能解决问题，但或许能阻止情况进一步恶化？
Or how about creating viable farmland to feed a growing population without taxing already stretched resources
或者，如何在不加重已有资源负担的情况下，创造可行的耕地来养活不断增长的人口？
Seawater Greenhouses Produce Tomatoes in the Desert
The problem I find is everyone seems to almost be looking for that one thing that will fix it all. That doesn’t exist, its a big issue, we’re going to need a lot of small solutions to solve the problem.
“海水温室在沙漠中种植西红柿的相关应用方案”
我发现的问题是，似乎每个人都想找到那个“一招制胜”的解决方案。但这种方案并不存在。这是一个巨大的问题，我们需要许多小的解决方案共同作用才能解决。
Ishrat Hussain Mohammad
Because there is a lack of interest from all the governments of all the countries of the world.
因为世界上所有国家的政府都缺乏真正的兴趣。
All the governments are busy in governing on the public and making the public more and more their subordinate and the governments are becoming more and more king like.
所有政府都忙于管理公众，让公众越来越顺从，而政府本身则变得越来越像“君主”。
The governments are only interested in making money because the people sexted to govern know that this is their first and last chance.
政府只对赚钱感兴趣，因为被选来执政的人知道，这是他们唯一一次（甚至可能是最后一次）掌权的机会。
Valerie Tomlinson
There aren't a lot of places that are treeless that are capable of growing trees that aren't being used for other purposes, such as agriculture.
有能力长树却尚未被利用的无树之地其实并不多，因为这些土地大多已被用于农业等其他用途。
Trees plant themselves. If there is an abandoned space somewhere, trees will start sprouting within a decade or two. Humans planting trees will only alter the species distribution, and possibly get a few years head start by planting seedlings that are already a bit bigger and stronger.
树木其实会自己生长。如果某片土地被废弃，十年或二十年内，树木就会自然萌发。人类植树最多只能改变物种的分布，或者通过种植已经稍大、更强壮的树苗，获得几年的提前优势。
The bigger issue is getting humans to stop cutting, burning, clearing, and paving over land. Return some of it to “free from human interference” status.
更关键的问题是，要让人类停止砍伐、焚烧、清理和铺路占用土地。将部分土地归还自然，使其“免受人类干扰”。
GrindupBaker
Wildfires. More trees == more wildfires, and hotter. More CO2 == more wildfires, and hotter. Trees & buildings burn, some Life gets killed. Sun replaces the trees with new ones pronto. Somebody replaces the buildings and the killed Life gets replaced with new Life. It’s eternal because Sun. When you add 50% CO2 you’ll not MacGyver your way out of that. Fat chance. Good Luck. Dream on.
野火问题。树越多=野火越多、越猛烈。二氧化碳越多=野火越多、越猛烈。树木和建筑都会燃烧，一些生命会因此丧生。太阳会迅速用新树取代被烧毁的树木。有人会重建房屋，死去的生命也会被新的生命取代。这是一个永恒的循环，因为有太阳。当你增加了50%的二氧化碳，你不可能靠“麦克吉弗式”（强调在执法中注重人性关怀与问题解决，而非单纯依赖强制手段）的小聪明解决这个问题。总而言之机会渺茫。祝你好运。最好是别做梦了。
Paul Jones
Here are the facts:
Trees, and plants in general, do not have any lasting effect on atmospheric gasses.
事实如下：
树木，以及植物总体而言，对大气中的气体没有持久性影响。
Here’s why:
When trees (and plants) are growing, it is true that they absorb carbon dioxide and water, and convert it to sugar. They release oxygen as a waste product.
原因如下：
树木（和植物）在生长过程中，确实会吸收二氧化碳和水，并将其转化为糖，同时将氧气作为“废物”释放出来。
However, when a tree (or plant) dies or is eaten, every bit of the carbon dioxide that was previously absorbed is released and every bit of the oxygen that was previously released is absorbed.
然而，当一棵树（或植物）死亡或被吃掉时，之前吸收的每一单位二氧化碳都会被重新释放，而之前释放的每一单位氧气也会被重新吸收。
In the end, there is no net change.
最终，净变化为零。
Should you plant trees?
Yes. Of course. I have personally planted thousands of them.
Is it going to make a difference regarding atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Not even a snowball’s chance in hell.
我们应该种树吗？
应该。当然应该。我个人已经亲手种了几千棵树。
这会对大气中的二氧化碳产生影响吗？
概率小于地狱里下起雪来。
Eric Korpela
Millions of trees would be insufficient. Current estimates are that we would need to plant about 1.2 trillion trees to significantly curb global warming. That means planting “millions” of trees is about a million times short of what would be necessary.
“数百万棵树”远远不够。目前的估计表明，我们需要种植大约1.2万亿棵树，才能显著遏制全球变暖。这意味着，种“几百万”棵树，距离所需数量还差了大约一百万倍。
Given human nature, we would plant the trees in the most economical manner possible. That would probably be synonymous with the most ecologically damaging way possible. To reduce cost we would probably choose to plant a single species over wide swaths of land, rather than trying to recreate a diverse forest ecosystem with an appropriate mix of trees, shrubs and native plants. That would prevent healthy diversity in insect, mammal, and bird species and lead to a forest vulnerable to disease and fire, which could undo their carbon storage function.
考虑到人类的本性，我们很可能会以最经济的方式植树——而这很可能等同于最具生态破坏性的方式。为了降低成本，我们可能会选择在大片土地上只种植单一树种，而不是努力重建一个包含合适比例的树木、灌木和本地植物的多样化森林生态系统。这将导致昆虫、哺乳动物和鸟类物种的健康多样性无法维持，使森林更容易受到疾病和火灾的侵袭，从而破坏其碳储存功能。
Any type of biomass, including trees is, at best, a temporary storage solution for CO2, unless we also bury the mature trees or otherwise turn their captured CO2 into some more permanent form of carbon storage, say making artificial coal. In other words, the trees will eventually die and release their carbon to the atmosphere. Permanently storing the carbon would be energy intensive.
任何生物质（包括树木）最多只能作为二氧化碳的临时储存方案，除非我们同时将成熟的树木掩埋，或以其他方式将其吸收的二氧化碳转化为更持久的碳储存形式（例如制造“人工煤”）。换句话说，树木最终会死亡，并将其碳释放回大气中。而永久储存碳的过程将非常耗能。
Human psychology is such that any means of removing carbon from the atmosphere will be seen as license to release more carbon into the atmosphere. Humanity has an addiction. Here’s a thought experiment… An person suffering from alcohol addiction is given a a newly developed drug that allows their liver to metabolize eight ounces of ethanol per day without ill effect. How do you think their behavior will change?
人类的心理特点是：任何从大气中移除碳的方法，都会被视为“可以排放更多碳”的许可证。人类对碳排放有“成瘾性”。做个思想实验：一个酗酒成瘾的人，被给予一种新开发的药物，使其肝脏每天能代谢八盎司乙醇而不产生不良影响。你认为他的行为会如何变化？
That said, reforestation can play a part in combatting global climate change, in conjunction with other sequestration methods, provided it is done in conjunction with the only thing that is guaranteed to work: large reduction and eventual elimination of carbon emissions from fossil fuels.
话虽如此，重新造林可以在对抗全球气候变化中发挥一定作用，但必须与其他碳封存方法结合，并且最关键的是：必须与唯一能确保奏效的措施同步进行——即大幅减少并最终消除化石燃料产生的碳排放。