As two thirds of our planet is ocean they have a greateffect on the carbon cycling. The ocean has a lower primary porductivity per unit area so it is thought to be just under half as said. Much of the facts and figures come from estimations and models so exact porportions are impossible to come up with and vary greatly depending on who (which government/organisation) and what they want to promote.
All plants and photosynthesising organisms both respire (produce CO2) and photosynthesise (create 02) its not so much the fact they produce oxygen (which can be balanced by the CO2 they create depending on the plants environment and physiology) it is the carbon put into its tissues and associated mycorhizal (symbiotic fungi) and microbe soil biota which are a benefit and this is the carbon which is taken from the atmoshere and stored. The majority of the coal used is the result of geological processes on the lycophyte, horsetail and treefern forests that existed during the carboniferous period. They did not decompose in the swamps they grew in and eventually formed peat. Heat and pressure turned this to coal. This is the locked up carbon. Once carbon dioxide is put back into the atmosphere the processes that remove it are on a huge timescale. If or once the permafrost starts melting then the carbon locked up in that will be released also. Running out of oxygen is not really an issue animals and humans use a small fraction of what is present in the atmosphere. We/animals/insects comprise a small fraction of the earths biomass, plants, diatoms, algae, etc, which comprise the majority and overall consume and produce oxygen. Biodiversity wise insects are the most diverse then plants.
Charities are well meaning but where does the money go and are their actions sensible. Cash crops empower people but empowerment basically equates to more money, not only for the essentials food and medicine but also starts the process of consumerism. The money gained from such crops in Africa for example have been shown to be used to buy bushmeat. Hunting of a limited resource to supply a growing population with money. That is a direct link back to the ecosystem, the chicken offcuts and frozen fish transported from western markets is different and adds a carbon releasing influence.
Personally i believe that organisations such a medican sans frontieres which helps those who are suffering greatly are the way forward. Imposing western ideals and sometimes farming methods on others is difficult to get right. Who makes the choice to let people progress or say their not allowed what we have?
What I've listed are just examples and the whole caboodle is very complex. Should we conserve only rare species or attempt to have the diversest ecosystem as possible? These cannot both happen at the same time usually. Should giant pandas survive and the huge number of endemic rainforest species (insects particularly) which are small and unnoticeable be a lesser priority? Just some thoughts.
All plants and photosynthesising organisms both respire (produce CO2) and photosynthesise (create 02) its not so much the fact they produce oxygen (which can be balanced by the CO2 they create depending on the plants environment and physiology) it is the carbon put into its tissues and associated mycorhizal (symbiotic fungi) and microbe soil biota which are a benefit and this is the carbon which is taken from the atmoshere and stored. The majority of the coal used is the result of geological processes on the lycophyte, horsetail and treefern forests that existed during the carboniferous period. They did not decompose in the swamps they grew in and eventually formed peat. Heat and pressure turned this to coal. This is the locked up carbon. Once carbon dioxide is put back into the atmosphere the processes that remove it are on a huge timescale. If or once the permafrost starts melting then the carbon locked up in that will be released also. Running out of oxygen is not really an issue animals and humans use a small fraction of what is present in the atmosphere. We/animals/insects comprise a small fraction of the earths biomass, plants, diatoms, algae, etc, which comprise the majority and overall consume and produce oxygen. Biodiversity wise insects are the most diverse then plants.
Charities are well meaning but where does the money go and are their actions sensible. Cash crops empower people but empowerment basically equates to more money, not only for the essentials food and medicine but also starts the process of consumerism. The money gained from such crops in Africa for example have been shown to be used to buy bushmeat. Hunting of a limited resource to supply a growing population with money. That is a direct link back to the ecosystem, the chicken offcuts and frozen fish transported from western markets is different and adds a carbon releasing influence.
Personally i believe that organisations such a medican sans frontieres which helps those who are suffering greatly are the way forward. Imposing western ideals and sometimes farming methods on others is difficult to get right. Who makes the choice to let people progress or say their not allowed what we have?
What I've listed are just examples and the whole caboodle is very complex. Should we conserve only rare species or attempt to have the diversest ecosystem as possible? These cannot both happen at the same time usually. Should giant pandas survive and the huge number of endemic rainforest species (insects particularly) which are small and unnoticeable be a lesser priority? Just some thoughts.
