Plants, Carbon & Oxygen
We keep hearing that Borneo’s rain-forests is the lungs of the world; that primary/old growth forests should be protected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I agree with the second statement, but not for that reason and the first statement is just sensational nonsense to make people care about Borneo’s rain-forests. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for saving the rain-forests, but I’m also for the truth. Being an activist is only meaningful if you know all the facts and both sides of the story (hey, we’re all in the same team now). If not, you might as well be a fanatic. So, let’s get the facts straight.
The main difference between plants and animals, humans included, is that plants produce their own food and they do this through the greatest non-human invention in the history of life: photosynthesis. To put it very simply, plants use energy from sunlight to synthesize glucose out of water and carbon dioxide. Oxygen, is produced as a by-product. This all happens in the leaves. Humans breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, while plants breathe carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen (by the way plants still respire so they still need oxygen and emit carbon dioxide).
That’s all very good, but what’s amazing is that trees get their large size from literally absorbing the air over several years; they’re sucking carbon right out of the air. So, they’re good at storing carbon. Naturally, living things stop growing when they mature, in the case of a tree, it will stop growing in height. Therefore, trees will absorb carbon at a slower rate as they get older. That means a virgin or primary forest, a forest that has never been disturbed or damaged and are hundreds of years old, is less effective at storing carbon than a secondary forest, one that has relatively young trees. So, regarding that second statement in the first paragraph, yes, we should protect primary forests, but not because they reduce carbon emissions, rather because they hold vast amounts of carbon that would otherwise be released if they were logged and cleared. If you want to utilize trees or forests to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a better way would be to plant trees. Yes, plant lots of trees and take care of those saplings.
Get solgitz’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
If you need a reason to save primary rain-forests, there are a multitude of valid ones. One of them is their ecological function, such as water catchment or water shed. They collect rainwater that flow into streams and rivers and provide us with fresh clean water. We can list all the things that we benefit from protecting primary rain-forests and it would never end. Outside of economic or ecological benefits, it has inherent or intrinsic value, which means it is valuable in its own right. And future generations have the right to enjoy it, just as we do and our ancestors did.
As for the first statement, that Borneo’s rain-forests are the lungs of the world, let’s figure out what that implies. So lungs here means an organ that provides oxygen for respiration. If Borneo’s rain-forests provide oxygen for the world, surely the same can be said for all the forests in the world. We just mention the Amazon and Borneo because they have the largest tract of continuous rain-forest. We wouldn’t be able to breathe without all those plants and trees. That’s where you’re wrong. If we were to burn every living thing in the world (God forbid), plant and animal alike, we would still have enough oxygen to breathe, but it would be unbearably hot and smoky. This compelling idea came from reading this tongue-in-cheek, but scientific, article written by Peter Brannen in The Atlantic.
Oxygen comprise 20.9% of our atmosphere. In that scenario where we incinerate every living thing except humans, oxygen would only drop by 0.5%; there would still be plenty of it. At any given time, when a plant by-produces oxygen, it is usually used up again to decompose a dead plant, carcass, or to break down the plant that made it, either way works. In Brannen’s words: ‘as much is consumed as is created’. The environment doesn’t really allow oxygen to float around freely. It’s very reactive, maybe feeding a fire or rusting iron.
So if existing photosynthesizing life did not make that 20.4%, where does it come from? The answer lies in our geological history. Eons ago a tree or phytoplankton dies and is quickly buried or submerged where oxygen can’t decompose it (that’s basically fossil fuels today). The oxygen that would otherwise be consumed is added to the atmosphere. This happens repeatedly over tens of millions of years and accumulates to become the 20.9% oxygen. So we are literally breathing the oxygen that more than ancient plants puffed out a very long time ago. We don’t really need that much oxygen to breathe or there’s just so much oxygen, more than we know what to do with. It won’t run out anytime soon.
So stop saying that Borneo or the Amazon is the lungs of the world. It makes me cringe when people are passionate over something that they don’t fully understand. You need to be critical towards what you say and what you read, especially in these times. Sure you can have an opinion, but an informed one is better.
There you have it; the facts, based on a article with references. I recommend you to read Brannen’s article. It’s very insightful and yet entertaining.
