SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »
Street Trees Map
Author Message
edd


Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #21
30-08-2015 10:08 AM

Laugh

You're probably right. No need for trees to reduce CO2. It's that pesky 78% Nitrogen we need to be worrying about!

Huh

And trees absorb some air pollutants. Even more stick to their leaves, and are washed off by rain and leach into the earth. Rather that than breathed straight into my lungs, thanks.

government basic info

THIS is also a helpfully easy explanation of why trees are important. I can google some other links if you need. But I'll be linking them via http://lmgtfy.com/ ..... Rofl

Find all posts by this user Reply
Mr Robin Banks


Posts: 80
Joined: Jun 2015
Post: #22
30-08-2015 10:08 AM

we actually need that 78% nitrogen in our atmosphere to remain at the level that it is. Our lungs work best with 21% oxygen in our breaths, any more or any less and problems will occur.

Anyway this isn't goof to change by planting a few more trees in a neighbourhood. What it will do is cause problems for residents.

Thumbdown

This post was last modified: 30-08-2015 10:14 AM by Mr Robin Banks.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Erekose


Posts: 553
Joined: May 2010
Post: #23
30-08-2015 11:33 AM

Sorry edd but we do need trees and other plants to keep the Co2 balance in the atmosphere we find so pleasant. Rising Co2 levels may well save us from the next ice age (only a mere 50,000 years away so keep an eye on that one) but we could end up instead with an atmosphere similar to the Cambrian which would be unpleasant to say the least.....that's only 3% more Co2 in the mix than we have now. More trees please.

Find all posts by this user Reply
edd


Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #24
30-08-2015 12:27 PM

I was aiming for sarcasm, erekose. Hence the Huh...
I clearly failed! I did pass GCSE Biology, though, which is why - unlike Sherwood? - I know that trees are vital to animal life on earth.

Banks - I don't understand "Anyway this isn't goof (sic) to change..."

This post was last modified: 30-08-2015 12:27 PM by edd.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Erekose


Posts: 553
Joined: May 2010
Post: #25
30-08-2015 12:56 PM

Ah sarcasm.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Mr Robin Banks


Posts: 80
Joined: Jun 2015
Post: #26
30-08-2015 04:53 PM

Quote:
Banks - I don't understand "Anyway this isn't goof (sic) to change..."


I type to quick, it was meant to say...

Anyway, this isn't going to change by planting a few more trees in a neighborhood. What it will do is cause problems for residents. [/quote]

Find all posts by this user Reply
edd


Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #27
30-08-2015 07:32 PM

Thanks for the clarification. Smile

Mmm. I'm going to have to disagree with you, I think. Yes, a few more trees may not seem to you to make much difference, but in a city like London they really are needed - each will help a little, and if each street got one more tree it would make a big difference to air quality, and indeed to the mental health of those people who enjoy seeing greenery (and yes, I am one of them).

Lewisham seems to me from what I've seen (and yes, anecdote does not equal data...) to be rather gung-ho about chopping down trees, and conversely reluctant to plant new ones. I feel sure that there can be a compromise between those who appreciate the value of trees in urban areas, and those who are worried their cars will get messy/their drains blocked/ their house foundations undermined.*

I think that I once read about a way of paying Lewisham for trees to be planted - even choosing what sort of trees.
Fancy pming me your address, so I can do some guerilla gardening? Laugh (only joking, obviously)



*notice my pleasing tricolon there.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Mr Robin Banks


Posts: 80
Joined: Jun 2015
Post: #28
30-08-2015 09:22 PM

I really do think the cons out way the pros, I only want whats best for the neighborhood. (as I'm sure you do to).

Find all posts by this user Reply
Jane2


Posts: 221
Joined: Jan 2007
Post: #29
30-08-2015 10:33 PM

I think your idea of what is best for the neighbourhood differs to mine.

As someone with asthma, and who has had to spend time in A&E with a child having an asthma attack, anything which improves air quality in Lewisham has to be a good thing. London has the poorest air in the UK and vehicles are the biggest contributor to air pollution. Trees can help to reduce air pollution. So I am sorry but if some birds do make a mess on some cars, its a small price to pay for the trees helping to mitigate the negative effects of those cars. What is most important here?
Car ownership in Lewisham is increasing every year; yet in Forest Hill at least we seem to be chopping down more trees than we are planting (that is anecdotal but its what many people have noticed and I have not heard anything to suggest otherwise).
Air pollution causes many health problems, including asthma, which have a negative effect on neighbourhoods - children missing school, additional strain on GPs, people missing work, and so on.

So no, funnily enough, I don't think more street trees is bad for the neighbourhood.

It would be nice if some of the money Lewisham collects from parking fines could be put towards more trees, but I can't see it happening somehow....

Find all posts by this user Reply
Jane2


Posts: 221
Joined: Jan 2007
Post: #30
30-08-2015 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Reply
Sherwood


Posts: 1,358
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #31
31-08-2015 08:42 AM

Jane2,

I think that your asthma is probably caused by pollution. I don't claim expertise in this area, but I suspect that most pollution is from vehicles. I have noticed that more schoolchildren suffer from asthma in schools adjoining busy main roads. The best way to deal with this would be to reduce or eliminate the sources of the pollution. Years ago we scrapped electric trolley buses and trams and replaced them with diesel powered buses. I suggest that we need to go full circle and use electric powered vehicles.

From the top of the building I work in I can see the whole of London. I cannot count the tress, but there are a lot of them!

I think that Lewisham's approach to trees is dictated by budget constraints and is not demand-led. I also think that if there is a demonstrable correlation between trees and health, Local Government would be seriously demanding funding from Central Government. It would assist the NHS to improve our health.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Sherwood


Posts: 1,358
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #32
31-08-2015 08:50 AM

edd,

I don't have a GCSE in biology. Perhaps your qualification will enable you to explain to me what trees do to reduce carbon dioxide from 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere and trap pollution (which seems to be a temporary arrangement) in the winter when they don't have any leaves.

Find all posts by this user Reply
edd


Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #33
31-08-2015 11:02 AM

A GCSE is a very basic qualification (!), so no, I can't explain much - but yes, CO2 trapping is greatly reduced in the winter (apart from evergreens, of course).

But all these websites put it much better than I can. Note particularly the 'sawtooth' pattern in the graph in my first LINK, which traces the rising CO2 levels from 1974 - 2006 - yes, the levels differ summer to winter each year, but the overall pattern is a decidedly upward trend.

THIS SITE also offers a clear layman's explanation of why CO2 peaks in May each year.

Although your figure of 0.04% carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere suggests CO2's effect on life must be negligible, it really is not. See HERE.

We might profitably continue our discussion HERE if you like? Thumbup

Find all posts by this user Reply
152047
No Longer Registered

Posts: 135
Joined: Jan 2011
Post: #34
10-09-2015 12:46 PM

I think that there have been a number of health studies that show that people live healthier lives in urban areas that have more trees.

Sure, no one wants a 100 foot monster outside their window plunging them into darkness and causing subsidence but it just so happens there are hundreds of different types and sizes of trees that you can plant in a street setting.

So all we need is a little imagination and forethought from the Council when selecting the trees to plant and a lot of the problems will go away, leaving us in the leafy oasis that I have always found FH to be.

PS Hats off to CatfordStreetTrees for a great piece of work.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields