[seowulf]

When Reagan addressed this issue, I believe he was refering to some trees which produced a fair amount of oxygen and others which net drains on the oxygen supply.

Actually, oxygen is not a pollutant (even to envirowackos, yet). The trees produce volatile organic compounds (VOC's) many of which are regulated by the EPA when produced by industry, like solvents in paints and the like.

[DoughtyOne]

When Reagan menthioned trees in this manner, he was talking about overall polution in our big cities. (At least I think he was.)

I didn't mean to imply that oxygen was a polutant, but that Reagan's premise was that some trees could compete with humans for the oxygen supply in heavily populated areas.

[DoughtyOne]

Thought you guys might like to see this AP report clipping from 2003.


Reagan was right!

Associated Press

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Ottawa — Coniferous forests around the world may be emitting more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than traffic and industry combined, suggests a report in the prestigious journal Nature.

The report, released Wednesday, flies in the face of the accepted view that forests reduce pollution by absorbing it — a theory Canada relied on in demanding credit for forests as pollution "sinks" under the Kyoto climate change accord.