CO2 Our Corn for Ethanol/DDG +Fast Tree will Clean the World

                CO2 Our Corn for Ethanol/DDG +Fast Tree will Clean the World

RESUME -

“CO2 Compared Sequestrations - Opposing to the Amazonian/World Native Trees, our Corn cultivate for Ethanol/DDG captures 14 times more and our new fast trees kidnaps 11 times more”.

“CO2 – Compared Actual Sequestration Levels of the Above items in hectare/year (also with data and measurements from fields in the US cultures most with heroic brazilian diagnostic cultures by the UFMG (The Minas Gerais State Federal University) and in almost all states of Brazil plus England etc.) compared to our native trees/other cultures, mainly, by to old trees kidnaps – beautiful, highly protected, but not really sequestering – from the Amazon more from the World too (Note: in the Amazon, with an average growth of only 40 cm/year as part of a “standard forest”, on average, around only 990 trees/hectare, because they have an average crown size of 30 m2 if mature, but with an average age of 186 years and even 1,400 years)”.

In other hand, however, recent research indicates that sequestrations level is very much high if they come from our corn culture for Ethanol/DGS (with up to 90,000 plants per hectare and up to 2.20 m in height each – apart from the lateral growths of up to 1.5 m in diameter of their crowns and with thousands of leaves plus dozens of stalks (named as “meritalos” here”) and spikes - and with up to possible 2.5 harvests/year). Also, in addition, our below new fast trees kidnap 11 times more than our amazon ancient trees if they have occurred by our new modern trees and very fast ones, such as the molambo tree and/or the white angico tree (this up to 5.0 meters high at 2 years old = growing 250 cm/year), mainly, if they are already used for replanting and for reforesting, in faster plantations more in incentivized processors projects. So, this can be very well implemented and encouraged even in lands that are already very degraded in Brazil, already cleaning a lot more exemplifying these really sustainable and fast new technics for the World, without anything being divulged or encouraged externally or internally (on the contrary, these my modern more revolutionary propositions are even condemned for absolute 2nd degree non knowledge and/or ignorance and/or stubbornness and/or other interests, nothing real socio-environmental)”.

Here, in this a very short detailed until short diagnosis (13 pg.) in which I demonstrate with reliable data that young, well-researched/developed and modern Brazilian or even other World trees - although little known and hardly used or even publicized - are much more socio-environmental and developmentally efficient than adult native trees from the Amazon and others World lives fundamental forests.

Also, I demonstrate that in modern corn crops very fast for ethanol/DDG animal feed production more than for some grasses and fast grasses for forage and even for sugar cane, the capture of CO2 can be even more intense and greater per hectare/year, even than these new very fast trees, well described below and well analyzed too, will be for reforestation and/or destined for rapid industrial use of wood for consumption in Brazil or for export well tracked/certified/until with seals of origin and already generating many more jobs and local development, in addition to greatly improving the situation and the local/regional environmental results of each forest where they will be implanted.

In 2022, the three largest emitters of GHG - Greenhouse Gases - in the World – are China, the European Union and the United States and they have contributed with 42.6% of global emissions, while the last 100 countries on the list represent only 2.9%. Worse. together, the top 10 world emitters are responsible for 2/3 of the world's GHG emissions.

“Until today, extreme weather events in the world have already cost us R$ 13.0 billion per year (= Us$ 2.6 billion) and the forecast is that, by 2030, we will still put around 3.0 million people in poverty extreme” only in Brazil. “It is considered that in order to achieve our sustainable objectives, our country will need to invest around 3.7% of its GDP/annual obtained until 2030”, but we have other social priorities and much more urgent ones, not least because our country is huge and still with enormous social inequalities and pockets of poverty. In addition, we would have to spend an additional 0.8% of our annual GDP (about R$ 500 billion/year = US$ 100 billion/year) until 2030, and which we don’t have too, in order to “zero” our carbon-only production in 2050.

Regarding the current ongoing and expanding forest devastation in Brazil (quite the opposite of what the whole world expected and even counted), a new report by the World Bank recently calculated that the devastation of the Brazilian Amazon alone can cause a loss of R$ 920.0 billion (= Us$ 184.0 billion) to Brazil by 2050, equal to about 10% of our current GDP.

However, the same report states that Brazil - if it really wants to and with sufficient internal and external resources - could put an end to illegal deforestation in up to 5 more years and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in up to 7 more years.

Recent, The World Bank, bluntly, even proposes as a path for Brazil the reduction of subsidies in the polluting sectors plus taxation on the extraction of our fossil fuels, which would represent up to R$ 150.0 billion per year (Us$ 30 .0 billion), by 2030.

In other words, the financial world, again, wants to exempt itself and deceive Brazilians, as they clearly know that taxing our fuels even more would immediately lead also not only to strong internal increases in our costs of agricultural production, but also of our fundamental foodstuffs but these would also increase the internal prices of such items, as they strongly impact their transport costs, especially to feed our poorest and in distant regions and even with difficult access.

Why doesn't the World Bank propose, now, the world taxation and for the next 50 years on the prices of oil more of fossil fuels and the like, more on operations on international stock exchanges (which are increasingly speculative and against all the world's people), starting with the developed countries? (All so that, with these resources, they can constantly contribute to the so-called Amazon Fund, but that the majority wants that, if possible, only Brazil contributes and that it takes responsibility for everything).

Also, although heavily criminalized decades ago by industries in general, plus by oil companies, plus by mining companies, plus by manufacturers of by non-electric vehicles, etc., total agriculture (including forests) is currently still responsible for ONLY 16.0% to 27.0% % of global warming emissions caused by human action (anthropic emissions) according to the BBC – see link still in Portuguese below.

"According to the IPPC, there are several gases that can cause the greenhouse effect, however, among the main ones are:

1. ) The Carbon dioxide (CO2) - responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect, which can remain in the atmosphere for up to 1000 years. It comes from accidental, criminal or natural burning trees (lightning) or by deforestation burning for cultures and, mainly, by the intensive burning of fossil fuels by vehicles (such as diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, natural gas, mineral coal, etc.); 

2. ) The Methane (CH4): the main component of natural gas, responsible for 15% to 20% of the greenhouse effect, and can remain in the atmosphere for up to a decade (a short time). Oil and gas extraction, coal mining and landfilling account for 55% of anthropogenic methane emissions. A total of 32% of this gas emissions can be attributed to ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep, which ferment food in their stomachs. Manure more MSW decomposition and rice cultivation are also agricultural activities that contribute to CH4 emissions. The Methane is 80 times more potent than CO2 as a cause of global warming;

3. ) The Nitrous oxide (N2O): it is responsible for about 6% of the greenhouse effect, lasting for approximately 120 years in the Earth's atmosphere. Emissions from human practices are mainly attributed to agriculture. Bacteria in soil and water already naturally convert nitrogen to nitrous oxide, however, fertilizer use and runoff have added even more nitrogen to the environment (as is often the case in the intensive cultivation of non-inoculated common corn, that is, not "spirillated", exactly one of the focuses and proposals of this innovative strategic socio-environmental diagnosis and re-cultivator/reforestation of our millions of hectares of already very degraded areas – as below described). The nitrous oxide is also present in emissions from burning fossil fuels. It is 280 times more potent than CO2 as a cause of global warming. "Thus, their levels of harmful contribution to global climate effects total and added up are low and controllable, but their very negative contributions occur and last for many more years than other harmful gases”.

Another urgent fact to solve is that, in our tropical Amazonia region, for example, forest renewal is very and very low, and, on average, they trees are 186 years old, but there are also have trees up with 1,400 years old as one already recent discovered (in temperate climates in the world, the average age of trees are 322 years, according to the FAPESP Brazil Institute). Recently, a beautiful Angelim Vermelho tree, approximately 400 years old, was discovered in the Brazil Amazon Forest, which reached 9.9 meters in circumference and 88.5 meters in height, the equivalent of a 30-story building.

This height more circumference may seem like a lot for many environmentalists, but the data showed above also proves, mathematically, that such an “the angelim tree” only grew a measly 22 centimeters per year, that is, it sequestered very little of our vital carbon and also produced almost no oxygen for humans, animals and biotas/biomes. In the well-researched/developed news trees above, such in our the” mutambo tree” also described, the growth rate is very high of 200 cm per year (with up to 4 meters height at only 2 years old) and in our “the white angico tree” reached a record of 250 cm of growth per year (it has 5 meters height at only 2 years old).

Comparing now real CO2 sequestration for such heights of such giant and old trees - very frequent and common throughout the Amazon and in other native forests in the Brazil (proven growth/minimum CO2 consumer and around only 22 cm per year, according to above, at most by triple, reaching 66 cm/year and with a mode of 40 cm/year) -, in a very simple way and also very objective and clear - with the average vertical height of 2.20 m of each corn stalk (this is a modal value, but can reach a height of 2.70 m/stalk), densely cultivated with modern technologies (highly consuming water + photosynthetic sunlight + locally sequestered carbon + much more organon minerals  fertilizers., etc.) it can be seen that the capturing reality of corn is much higher than that of those old trees and this without considering that corn extends many branches and ears for more than 1.5 m in its crown, that is, on its horizontal or lateral surface (all with many stems, actually culms with “meritalos”/stalks; + wide and long leaves + ears + husks of such ears etc., all with fast growth and highly carbon sequestration, for that ).

Thus, while an adult tree is more common in the Amazon and can grow only 40 cm per year (mode), each corn plant can grow 550 cm, = 0.55 m (mode too) – so around 14 times more - also in just 01 year (equal to 2.20 m of the average height of each crop 'versus” up to 2.5 crops per year). These are high considered numbers and differences, around 14 times more - all highly favorable to corn planting even just for carbon sequestration/oxygen emissions, when and if they are the cases (eg, severe future reduction in O2 levels plus the corresponding expansion of CO2 and with many deaths of humans and animals) -, but which we also need to demonstrate now and here, and details of the average fixations in kg/hectare/year of each crop, pasture or tree can be seen in the links above, at diagnostics special in the USA more at the UFMG University Brazil.

These conclusions, for example, that dense corn modern cultures with an average of 60,000 plants/hectare (varies from 30 to 90,000 plants) in up to 3 crops/year (total of up to 180,000 very fast plants per year and with very high water demands + of sunlight + millions of t of CO2 per hectare) or even the permanent the Parica tree sequester much more carbon - measured in kg/hectare/year - than about 990 static/permanent trees per hectare and with an average of 180 years and with crowns averages of 30 m each (thus, 33 squared per hectare/year) they are so primary and secondary degree that it seems to me that they really want to play more to forge the fundament and basic mathematics.

“In modern Corn very fast crops for ethanol/DDG animal feed more than some fast grams for fodder and even sugar cane, the capture of Co2 can be even more intense and larger per hectare/year, even than by those new very fast trees, well described below and well analyzed, these trees being for reforestation or for quick industrial timber uses for consumption in Brazil or for certified exports and already producing much more jobs and local development, in addition to greatly improving the situation and the environmental local/regional results of each forest, where they are implanted.”

I believe that, in a very futuristic vision that - together with some special algae - the much faster and constant cyclic cultivation of "spirillated" corn for ethanol/DDG could be just as or even much more revolutionary for science and for humans and animals , as it would even allow its rapid cultivation by hydroponics (with recyclable and fertigated water and with little nitrogen) or in vertical greenhouses (as in modern and fertirrigated tomatoes and with plants up to 4 meters high) in modern spacecraft and everything to produce a lot of oxygen for immediate use, aspirating the CO2 exhaled by groups of humans and some very fast animals PLUS feeding such animals with their DDG plus producing energy by burning their ethanol.

After all, who has forgotten, or no longer knows, that human life seems to have started on Earth around 650 million years ago and almost certainly, when some seaweed - in an environment where humans would not survive directly - were very exposed to sunlight and started to manufacture a lot of oxygen, from the CO2 they breathed/absorbed?  About the "Algal invasion may have revolutionized life on Earth" still in Portuguese please read at: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-40999136

Obviously, I am not here defending the felling of trees in our Amazon Forest or any other forests in the country and the world, not least because there would be immense damage to the soil, subsoil, waterways, air streams/rivers and all biomes and biotas. Also, I am not advocating here waiting for the natural recovery of the forests – as is often preached – as these occur in an uncontrolled and very slow manner.

What I am defending here is a new intelligent way, much faster and more socially and environmentally fair to sequester much more carbon per hectare/year by crops (also a great generator of jobs and fundamental developments in those places), well designed and well implanted - in areas already degraded or in degradation or already decimated by fires, lightning, mineral exploration and aquifers etc., - of new trees much faster and more efficient, as described, and also of crops that are even much more sequestering than those of the new trees above, such as new “spirillated/inoculated” corn for ethanol production + DDG = animal feed.

In other words, everything will happen through progressive replacement of old or slowly native trees that almost no longer sequester CO2 in the above locations (and even crops that are not so sequestering or very nutritious, etc., such as cassava and/or poor food tubercles etc..) or even implantations of many areas already available and/or in degradation, progressively migrating to thousands of different sizes of projects for forestation, reforestation and new other intensive and socioeconomic crops, much more positive for everyone, also environmentally). After all, it would be of no use to reduce CO2 and/or nitrous oxide (NO2) and/or methane (CH4) emissions if, to do so, we caused even greater environmental damage to people.

After all, it would be pointless to reduce CO2 and/or nitrous oxide (NO2) and/or methane (CH4) emissions if, to do so, we caused even greater environmental damage to people and their places and to the environment as as a whole and as a heritage of the human being and not of some.

According to recent studies by our the ESALQ/USP Agr. University, in many regions of the Amazon Forest there is already a natural fertility - called soils "TPA Terras Pretas da Amazonia" (= ADE "Amazonian Dark Earths"), that is, with charcoal derivatives also containing many good bacteria from specific soils, as if they were a “peat” - and resulting from thousands of years of fast organic decomposition plus slow incorporation of coal (carbon) from the many non-criminal fires that occurred. See below “Brazilian study suggests that the Terra Preta (ADE) is the secret to reforesting the Amazon”.

The ideal is that, initially, the Central Government creates - URGENT - a new body (like the former "CAMPO") to create, to encourage, to finance in the long term, more to manage and to charge, etc., all in the form of a new plan for our agroforestry development and reforestation in places where we most need to recover soils, water or socio-environmentalism/develop –, that is, with specific, quick and urgent plans, but with long-term goals, and only for the purposes mentioned above.

As my proposal to forest-reforest, much faster, the already degraded areas and prevent further degradation due to the constant advances of bad projects of bad farmers/agricultural businessmen on our forests and similar, initially, I suggest creating an official program similar to the former JICA PRODECER – “Japanese-Brazilian Cooperation Program for the Agricultural Development of the Cerrados”(brazilian savannas), created in 1979 and which changed, rather quickly, the reality at the time of all the cerrados/savannas of only the Midwest Region and much later for other suitable locations) and which culminated in our current giant grain production for world (currently 320 million tons/year, compared to just 41 million tons in 1979). See below more dates of “the Japanese-Brazilian Cooperation Agreement old Program for the fast Agricultural Development of the Cerrados Internal Regions (Brazil savannas)”.

After all, invariably, almost all abandoned and non-reforested/not recovered/not well-cultivated lands become, in the medium term, either lands devastated by erosion with no water sources or even almost no water sources (as in our semi-arid and other internal deserts in constant expansion) or become vast sandy caatingas or tired soil cerrados. Contrary to what many think – with the strong crisis and many current world climate uncertainties – “the nature” is no longer able to recover by itself.

On the other hand, we all need to be aware that invariably, almost all land abandoned and not reforested/not recovered/poorly and/or not cultivated becomes, in the medium term, either land devastated by erosion and almost without water resources or even almost without possible sources of water (as in our semi-arid and other internal deserts in constant expansion) or become vast our Caatingas or our Cerrados fields (savannas).

However, as a duty of office and necessary seriousness, I have to inform, unfortunately, that previously and erroneously, several governments – poorly advised, poorly informed and even thinking that lettuce was a dollar bill – encouraged and financed many projects that were technically wrong (even supported by some renowned famous agrarian universities, until today) in very erroneous adoptions and/or implantations (such as by the infamous the PROVARZEAS Program of the Brazil-Germany Agreement = “Program for draining swampy areas for natural irrigated crops”) and everything to drain, in fact intensely and deeply deplete, millions of hectares of very fertile lowlands/swampy for cultivation of irrigated rice and even forage oats in some central states that had no aptitude for this (especially in the Minas Gerais State more in the Rio de Janeiro State). Obviously, this led to the continued severe degradation of many sites – eg very fertile ones – and with their water sources drying up and even their sources and water sources dying, and this persists to this day.

Also, unfortunately, the majority of socio-environmental NGOs and forestry entities are still fully active in Brazil - especially in the states of the Legal Amazon, more of our Atlantic Forest more in the Forests and Spices of the south and in the Northeast of the country more in extractives cultures or natives in the Northeast - with the passage of time more with the many and constant changes of Governments and of Federal, State and Municipal Directors more of the Laws in force etc.-, have already become unreliable, in terms of prospecting and actions in projects, mainly, when coming from international resources. Therefore, we do not recommend them.

There are already many complaints in progress and analyzes against them and, recently, a friend MS specialized Forest Senior Engineer - known honest Consultant of very serious Projects for reforestation with the new fast trees and much more carbon sequestrant and ditto preservers and even recreators of local water in areas where it even disappeared due to so much degradation  (which I quote and analyze below) - described to me that such the current NGOs are lost with their budgets more its high operating costs (vehicles, fuel, rents, wages, daily rates, etc.) and that, at the end of each project, only 30% of the resources that arrived were (or are) actually used for the social, environmental and forestry goals or each project. He described to me that he had already participated, indirectly, as a service provider or directly as an Associate Consultant in hundreds of NGO Amazon projects in such regions and with such purposes, but according to him, almost all of them had the same errors, that is, they were NGOs or entities – associated/contracted/partners, or not, with some Governments –, but who really to not wants works. Otherwise, it looks like even to wants a lot of money and little real work and zero results and zero fulfillment of socio-environmental/forestry goals for their financiers or investors or maintainers international or domestic. Thus, a good part of their performances, possibly, are nothing more than well-planned and even encouraged “stage games” and/or possible false performances (even criminal ones, if they were well investigated, which rarely happens) and just “for English to see”, as is often quoted here in Brazil and in many other countries, “but in a loving and never offensive way”.

DETAILED SHORT DIAGNOSIS - 

The issue of continued degradation of the Amazon Forest is fundamental for Brazil and also for the world, as Brazil alone does not have enough resources to solve alone such gigantic problems. A recent “report by the World Bank calculated that the devastation of the Amazon could cause damage of a very high R$ 920,0 billion (= US$ 180,0 billion) to Brazil by 2050 (equal to about 10.0% of our current GDP” and, to get an idea, it was invested only around 1.7% in 2021).

The truth is that we still have little access to the world's socioeconomic assets plus their wealth and partnerships, even if only in partnerships of the PPP types - Public Private Partnerships. Such PPPs are essential for our country at a time when we need much more international investment for our socio-environmental/energetic and developmental projects - real, reliable and followed-up -, especially in clean energy, transport routes, education, tourism and, above all, in basic sanitation in the municipalities (and who would most profit financially from all this would be exactly the shareholders or groups that own the hundreds of multis and foreign suppliers that are already here).

In fact, we are still much more seen, worldwide, as cheap suppliers and/or reliable buyers of such multis - more than a few national entrepreneurs -, as we give them a lot of cheap labor plus fertile land plus abundant water plus cheap food and, mainly, more current and future good consumers/buyers. In Brazil, another giant differential of ours and sometimes even forgotten, is that most of our people (about 75%) live and consume up only to 300 km from the beaches, that is, they are very far from the Amazon Forest and, thus, " few know or really can or want to fight, internally and externally, to defend or prioritize it”.

Thus, the rich and developed world, which currently begs so much for the preservation of our Amazonia, also has a lot of previous and current culture, because we do not have enough resources to preserve it properly for them and how they want, but only now are they much more concerned, after many crises and many proven environmental damages and many deaths due to very clear global climate changes, now in recurring events, and which compromise their survival as in the their previous “dolce far niente” more of their families and their descendants and, mainly, reductions and even business failures (both directly due to the combined effects of erratic climates, and indirectly, through strong and continuous drops in demand in some sectors and even stock exchanges and/or greater actions by world sectoral competitors, also arising from the strong and rapid world globalization that occurred with the internet plus the fall of the dollar as a safe reference for financial security and reliable business). Brazil became an independent republic, only internally and since 1899, but this was only in a political way, because economically we are still very, very dependent – not freed – on the World, its businessmen, its stock exchanges, its multinationals, its shareholders, i.e., its peoples. See more details in “Devastation of the Amazon could cost Brazil almost R$ 1 trillion” still in Portuguese at: https://thenewscc.com.br/brasil/devastacao-da-amazonia-pode-custar-quase-r-1 -trail-to-brazil/

Now, scientifically and socially, I ask you: Why do we keep Amazonian trees for up to 1,400 years and with a height of up to 30 floors (on average, they are trees that are 186 years old) and that sequester almost nothing of real carbon, in addition to being very subject to forest fires (natural or criminal) and which, with their canopies of up to 40 m2, practically to prevent much greater photosynthesis/rapid growth and real sequestration (up to 11 times more Co2/hectare/year, compared to the slow ones above) by many trees very fast, newly researched/developed, up to 3 floors below, all also good carbon stores in their highly positive and safe socio-economically processable trunks for more timber employments more high social benefits??

I propose that we unite to suggest/demand, urgently, starting from the Brazilian Governments (03 spheres) more from the reforestation companies  more PNHR/RPPN tree reserves (“Private Natural Heritage Reserves”) that they implant – especially in the almost 100.0 million hectares of already degraded livestock low yield area in the Brazil interior giant savannas (always in a well-designed and scientific way in projects of the MFS type – “the Sustainable Forest Management” or the ILFPE type too - “the Crop-Forest-Livestock-Extractivism Integration” - thousands of small and medium news fast trees sustainable/employing projects – with, or without, the many resources in Us$ of the current/proposed big Amazon Fund and similar ones.

“The use of wood in buildings is an ancient and very common practice today, being very useful and for all peoples of the world”. The world has agreed to much better uses of wood as quality building materials and with lower emissions than other materials”.

However, in addition, it is considered that the forestry/timber and agricultural sectors in the world - especially in Brazil - will need to improve and greatly accelerate their ways of not emitting carbon and other gases (as well as NO2 – see below) comes from crops rather than from not good uses and not correct and long-term storage of such items (as in a type of school homework, obligatory and to be done very quickly), since our people are waiting for a giant world reconversion of vehicles powered by petroleum derivatives is expected in the next 50 years - very current emitters of carbon and other gases - by billions of electric vehicles, much more modern and little or no carbon emitters.

“Wood is composed of up to about 50% carbon, just like all WFP - “Wood Forest Products” (like a piece of furniture or a book or a board or a door) only it contains (stores properly) the carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by the trees (correct carbon sequestration, as I insist so much in my diagnoses). In this way, the carbon remains stored in the product until it begins to decompose in the future and its consequent CO2 emissions after use. Thus, the productions and uses of WFP are an appropriate and fundamental way to increase the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, contributing to reducing the effects of climate change”.

“The round wood (logs) produced by the plantations or by old native’s trees – unfortunately - is transformed, except for its residues in crops and processing, into 3 main types of industrial products: 1) Production of paper and cardboard; 2) Manufacture of panels, sheets and laminates (timbers) and 3) Production of sawn wood (timbers)”. The products are then accounted for until this processing stage, although the wood goes through other transformation processes”.

Quite unlike many countries (much colder, with forest crops closer to destinations and with little use of native trees). In recent decades, even beneficially, we have prioritized the use of bricks and cement in construction in Brazil, which has led to a decrease in demand/supply of wood by our native forests, which are far away. Culturally, wooden houses came to be seen around here as simpler or poorer houses. This trend, however, is beginning to reverse in Brazil “with advances in wood/timber architecture – a good part of which is already cultivated and/or undergoing from rapid and modern reforestation – and in the development of new construction systems, now with industrial parts”.

For Brazil, one good socio-environmental and developmental news is that “recently the country (the our EMBRAPA FOREST Research Center) has also started accounting for the correct storage of carbon from forest products. This unprecedented study began to measure data on carbon accumulation in such WFP (“Wood Forest Products”), such as sawn wood, wood panels and paper and cardboard, as well as waste discarded from processing or industrialization. – even if minimal – of these materials”.

The first survey by the EMBRAPA was carried out in 2020, using the year 2016 as a reference, and accounted for 50.7 million tons of CO2 equivalent already stored in the best way and/or already rescued from the country's atmosphere (still due to the low levels of carbon sequestration for the trunks (of such ancient trees, little real carbon sequestration, plus more from recent shrubs, also little carbon sequestration) and/or also for the non-emissions of CO2 due to their possible burning by local accidental and/or criminal fires or even by very expensive, and problematic, incinerations in boilers or ovens to produce steam or electricity and/ or for use as charcoal in blast furnaces at nearby steel mills).

“The increase in the number of our wood forest products, in addition to being strategic for the country in the final balance of emissions, is a factor that is linked to more sustainable policies that encourage the use of wood”. “Wood is a renewable good, replacing other materials, especially in civil construction where it has a dual function: in addition to storing carbon in wooden structures, they also replace steel and concrete, products with high CO2 emissions in production”.

“So, the CO2 removal, promoted by the WFP in Brazil, has increased a lot over the years. From 1990 to 2016, the annual removal ranged from 11.0 million equivalent to 50.7 million tons of CO2/year, according to the negative atmospheric flux numbers approach”.

“In Brazil, it is estimated that the contribution of forest products to CO2 removal already represents around 13% of the sector’s gross emissions”, but, honestly, I still think it is very little, ideally reaching 45%, just below in other ways, mainly, by non-vehicular emissions and other forms, also anthropic.

Our actual number obtained, despite still being considered small when compared to other countries, represents only 3.5% of total GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions, and is, beneficially, deducted from the final account of such gross emissions from the Country."

“For the final estimate of the carbon stock of wood forest products in Brazil, our current production of logs was considered are intended for various industrial processes, except for firewood and charcoal, since, according to the IPCC methodology, these categories generate immediate carbon emissions. carbon.

About this, see more details about “Brazil starts accounting for carbon from forest products” still in Portuguese at the link: https://www.poder360.com.br/meio-ambiente/brasil-passa-a-contabilizar-carbono-de- forest-products/

About the necessary reforestation of large agrarian areas, and with high need for renewal in Brazil, it is good to know (recalling that we already have a minimum of 100.0 million hectares, in use by low-productivity livestock, and already quite degraded to recover, urgently, according to our the EMBRAPA AGROBIOLOGY Brazilian Agr-Research Institute (see link below) that it was estimated that the real reforestation rate in Brazil did not exceed, until now, 0.68% of the goals established in the Paris 2015 agreement (= 0.079 million ha, that is, only 79,0 thousand hectares) and this even adding the approximately 11.0 million hectares already in natural recovery of shrub vegetation, at least. In Brazil, still according to the EMBRAPA below, the total pasture area was 159.0 million hectares in 2021, of which 66.0 million hectares (= 41.5%) were already in a state of intermediate degradation and 35 .0 million hectares (= 22.0%) already in a situation of severe degradation. In other words, of the total pasture area in use in the country, 63.5% already showed signs of degradation and with trends to get worse.

In the Paris Agreement, Brazil committed in 2016 to reforest a minimum of 12.0 million hectares with only native vegetation (nothing was yet planned to be implanted with the new trees that are much faster and much bigger real carbon sinks/year, as y describe above), which would require total of Us$ 15,6 billion (= R$ 52.0 billion converted at the average exchange rate for 2015 of R$ 3.33 = US$ 1.00) according to our “Instituto Escolhas” (specialized in more socioeconomic and environmental forest diagnoses), as linked below.

Thus, a better estimation, in a minimum area of initial reforestation of 12.0 million hectares throughout Brazil - as agreed in the 2016 Paris Agreement - could provide total revenues estimated at around Us$ 9,0 billion/year (= R$ 30.0 billion/year converted as above rate too) and to generate up to 2.5 million jobs/year, in those more degraded states (if adding only 12.0 million ha, initials, according to this Agreement and which the Government has already said it will comply with) and greatly reducing the Brazil poverty levels.

When implemented properly, the revenues and jobs generated will be immense and for the whole country, because, only with the correct reforestation of the State of Pará included in the Amazon Foresty - Brazil, when 5.9 million hectares are reforested, the revenues from its adequate explorations will reach US$ 4,1 billion/year (as exchange rate above too), also hiring 1.0 million jobs per year and reducing the poverty rate in the same state by 50%. Also, in the State of Maranhão Brazil the reforestation of only 1.9 million hectares could generate combined revenues of Us$ 1,4 billion/year (as above rate too), in addition to employing over 350,000 workers/year and reducing poverty in the State by 21.5%. See more details of “To meet the reforestation target, Brazil would need to plant 8 billion trees” still in Portuguese at: https://oeco.org.br/noticias/para-cumprir-meta-de-reflorestamento-brasil-precisaria-plantar-8-bilhoes-de-mudas /. See also diagnoses for “new propositures for Brazilian pastures on the current intensive degradations, more on giant areas, almost abandoned and already urgently needing reforestation” by the EMBRAPA AGROBIOLOGIA diagnostics, still in Portuguese at: https://www.embrapa.br/agrobiologia/pesquisa-e-desenvolvimento/pastagens#:~:text=No%20Brasil%20a%20%C3%A1rea%20de,est%C3%A3o%20com%20sinais%20de%20degrada%C3%A7%C3%A3o. 

For me, everything would be expanded in the form of a real socio-environmental-processing-exporting-energy circular economy, to be provided by such cutting-edge exploitative/processing crops and technologies (including many rapid crops to occupy already degraded areas, all for industrialization and exports of fast woods for processing their leftovers and other biomass for good local electricity generation by the rapid syngasifications of such waste and leftovers).

In forestry, environmental and socioeconomic terms, everything will happen through progressive and very well-planned replacement of very slow or already old native trees by the following very fast cultivations of forest trees and shrub legumes with good wood (which cattle love in pastures), most of which are still few known in Brazil (most are all from the Amazon and other agr.-regions, that is, fast and already well adapted) such as: 1) The Paricá tree; 2) the Guanandi tree; 3) The Tatajuba tree; 4) The Mutambo tree (the latter with up to 4 meters at 2 years old); 5) The Angico Branco tree (up to 5 meters at 2 years old); 6) The Faveira-Bajão tree; 7) The Leucenas (legumes to recover degraded areas, but very sensitive to fire); 8) The Sansão do Campo prickly bush (up to 8 meters at 5 years old and very suitable for reforesting degraded areas); 9) The Special rubber trees; 10) Some Eucalyptus tree and even 11) The Pinus tree, etc. See more information in “Meet the 7 best trees that grow fast (in Brazil)” still in Portuguese at https://www.ibflorestas.org.br/conteudo/arvores-que-crescem-rapido .

According to the experienced and tireless eng. forest researcher, Mr. Adilson Pepino (“The Amazon Hummingbird Project” = Projeto “Beija Flor da AM” - See at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuq9Ru-ZK79AVQjFZNmXLwA ), the best current socioeconomic and environmental results are those obtained with new plantations/crops, as well as made and well programmed, from the Pine trees (less demanding on soils than the Eucalyptus and with sales prices of Us$ 1.0 thousand/ton as industrial wood, but which requires large-scale cultivation) also with new and very fast plantations/crops of the Balsa Wood tree (highly valued industrially, with a maximum cycle of 5 years and even better than the Paricá tree above – this a little latter with a cycle of 6 to 8 years -, but as long as it has a productivity of 240 kg/m3 obtained with the balsa wood).

For him, there are three major difficulties to establish large reforestation projects with these fast wood tree and environmentally much more positive for everyone, especially in already degraded areas, and they are:

1) Practically, absence of specific and encouraging Federal for the State Legislation, especially regarding processing more incentives for such faster and more substitutive trees (certainly, negatively, also due to the many actions - almost for prohibitions of such incentives - and formulated and practiced by the so-called “fake environmental NGOs” plus by the so-called green press, in general, even united against the real socio-environmental and against the development of very poor areas, all still in a cross-eyed,  ancient, malicious, ill-informed, selfish and even stingy);

2) Certain lack of interest from the most favorable States (especially from the Amazon more the Cerrados Region (interior savannas our current giant grain productions more fast degradations[cs1] [cs2]  too) - and which are quite incredulous and even lost with such recent pressures for necessary actions plus hundreds of socio-environmental forest charges even daily in the local press and, worse, in the national one, which require very quick and well-prepared-well thought-out-well-structured responses, as it could withdraw many of your votes in the future and/or that, with certainty, require real, quick and not lazy actions (as has been practiced for years) by the most of the current politicians of the municipalities and states most in focus. For example, which one of them already has a real and feasible plan to use and to operate with such Amazonian Funds? Do they want NGOs to replace them and/or dictate, again, their interests, as is the practice?);

3) Practically, absence of purchasing industrial parks (adequate/powerful - and which have not yet understood nor well understood the fundamentality of their strategic locations in Amazonian states or neighboring states in the Northeast and Midwest, in a situation with many resources left over (including Us $ billions now really arriving from the so-called Amazon Funds that are already contributing very closely and very much to the search for good projects that are very serious, well made, well implemented, well managed; very reliable socioeconomically and, above all, environmentally). Brazil - remember now, strategically, that there is already a giant, strategic and central railroad in the country (FNS - The North-South Railway) that already travels comes from the Panorama City - SP (where it joins with another important railroad that is very operational, the Vicente Vuolo railroad, former the Ferronorte Railway, comes from Rondonópolis City - MT also to the Port of Santos - SP) to the super deep port of the Itaqui City in Maranhão state, this one very close to the strategic new Panama Canal, now for giant ships with up to 200 thousand tons. So, for “themselves” more for their shareholders, future really giant profits, such processing industrial parks already have all the necessary ingredients at hand, starting with importing fertilizers (for exchanges and/or verticalized/fostered forestry production) plus to produce very well in States where it rains much more and with much more resources available and with access both to export their processed wood, and to store much more solid carbon in the form of furniture and/or wood for civil construction and with them to take the train to the south of the country, where there is huge demand and in strong expansion by quality wood (which will also reduce the pressure of even irregular forest felling over there).

Its true thar for the large Brazilian forestry/forestry companies – in order to profit much more for them serves and their shareholders – must quickly get out of the same pulp productions and/or just from scratches for the MDF (“Medium Density Fiberboard”) more for the MDP (“Medium Density Particleboard”) more similar - as agglomerates and plywood – there are high demands on very good soils in large areas over 50,000 hectares (own or verticalized/fostered) more perfect climates (lots of distributed rains + good insolation) in many months a year plus really low labor costs more easy access to good and reliable  railways more to major ports, otherwise the profits will not come. In a simple and quick survey on the location of such current industrial plants in Brazil, it is already seen that the majority of them in 2010 do not meet most of these requirements and perhaps even care little about them.

Still in 2011 (that is, well before the conclusion of the new fast railroads in Brazil and the beginning of the construction of the new railroad projects -  all in the shape of a central cross (both for the arrival with cheaper freight of many fertilizers, and for the quick and safe departure of the manufactured products to the closer ports)  more of the new deep ports in giants in the 06 strategical points of the seas Brazil) an very important diagnostic (“Potentialities of Brazilian regions for cellulose plant settlement”) made by the Department of Forestry Engineering of the Brazilian Federal University of Viçosa  - UFV concluded as I describe below: “The final analysis for the national territory enabled to identify 30.47% of its land as potentially excellent areas for setting up a cellulose plant, 34.36% as satisfactory potential, 11.54% as average, 23.63% as potentially low and 0% unviable. Thus, it is concluded that Brazil is endowed with great potential to attracting great part of the change in the axis of the world cellulose production from the Northern to Southern Hemispheres. Besides, which could impel the regional economy with countless environmental improvements”.

About error and/or recommendation’s changes for strategic plants location the high credibility diagnostic also say: “The Therefore, the previously classified areas of low potential, which occupied 1.39% of the national territory, now occupy 23.63% (2,011,488.74 km2) and are located in the southeast of the North Region, in part of the Northwest of the Midwest Region, almost in the entirety of the Northeast region and in the Northeast of the Southeast (above all, due to more or less difficult climatic restrictions or due to constant occurrences and serious conflicts/invasions of land for pastures and/or conflicts with miners/mining companies, etc..) . more medium potential areas also underwent changes and now occupy 11.54% (982,638.99 km2) of the national territory; good ones, 34.36% (2,926,081.75 km2); and those with excellent potential and unfeasible continued with the same 30.47 and 0%, respectively.

Thus, still in 2011, by the sum, it was clearly noted that about 76.4% of the agrarian areas in Brazil were considered, scientifically, as more suitable for such afforestation and/or reforestation with Pinus or Eucalyptus, according to UFV in 2011 (A diagnose already quite contrary to the current booklets still in use by such companies, more by their technicians/consultants and investors). So, what really mattered, I think and according to the UFV technicians, were already much more their future strategic locations (in logistical terms, closer to the new faster railroads and more connected to the big ports) PLUS the predominant topographies in each area and everything to facilitate/expand mechanization and, thus, to reduce costs (not so flat and therefore, not subject to flooding, nor subject to dry spells due to the many winds/humidity drops and/or laminar erosion typical of very flat giants interior areas) PLUS the prices of the land (or if there are already good associative conditions to implement good legal forestry projects) PLUS the incentives to be received in each location (including for generating own electricity and even for power selling, if possible for local hybrid energy, adding up to 7 different good power sources close to 80 km from the plants in these cases and almost free, very common situations in those areas that are already more degraded and/or in degradation - and to be recovered even with the US$ billions of incentives from the new Amazon Fund – and/ or with modern and rapid syngasifications of its leftovers and detritus, etc.). Thus, in 2011, the data already showed that it was no longer worth fighting for areas with grains and/or sugarcane and/or fruit and/or coffee/cocoa/palms and/or high-level livestock, etc. See more details at: https: //www.scielo.br/j/rarv/a/bVMJty3y4mScT7VBGLLFt5t/?lang=pt .

If you leave more of your investors and consultants to them alone, including very famous agrarian Entities and Universities (some still with little real social and developmental interest), they will only explore/cultivate with eucalyptus or pine the most fertile and much more expensive lands in the Southeast and in the South regions, just as it has happened for dozens of years with sugarcane cultivation in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais and that only about 20 years ago began to expand to other states in the South, more Central-West and Southeast.

Although most eucalyptus and pine cultivation areas etc. have more inclined topographies, that is, “with hills”, they also have a high average natural fertility and could also be better cultivated - as is proposed for the current areas with sugar cane - for the cultivation of grains or other foods (including corn for ethanol + DDG/feed) and with much cheaper production costs.

The fact is - and I demand and insist a lot - that in the analyzes of such incentives and promises of greater financing/investments, even in full and concessions of immense tax benefits and losing sight of promoting the places - one should not only charge the promises of possible generation of jobs plus poor people income and more local future taxes state revenues, after the end of the immense and added government incentives, as such activities are being increasingly mechanized and, therefore, do not generate much jobs, etc.

Also, a good part of the current sugarcane crops in Brazil are considered poorly located. Although they are essential for the production of sugar, an essential food for the poorest people in the world, the sugarcane sector is even highly criticized by some for using much more soils with high natural average fertility and with a very flat topography. According to such critics, such land could be better used for grain crops (including corn for ethanol + DDG/feed) or other foodstuffs, with much cheaper production costs. Also, in order to profit much more, in addition to producing ethanol (a fuel considered clean and renewable), most plants promote the so-called co-power generation with the burning of sugarcane bagasse for electrical production, which classifies the sector as harmful to the environment for having the so-called “negative carbon footprint”, also greatly damaging the country's image, according to several environmental analysts.

The DDG – “Dried Distillers Grains” (dry distillery grains) is a very modern and even surprising final by-product (leftovers in the form of a wet mass), obtained after the production of ethanol and which has up to 30% of crude protein and, thus, is already widely used - as a cheaper substitute - in the correct and intensive feeding of pigs and poultry, etc. Although it is a residue, its protein content is just a little lower than that of high-level “high-pro” soybean meal (very expensive, but the most used in feed for fast animal production and with up to 48% protein). In environmental terms, the uses of DDG also collaborate by greatly expanding and reducing the cost of the rapid production of those animals, much faster and major competitors of cattle, sheep and goats, the latter highly methane emitters in their digestion of pastures.

Thus, such data and analyzes responsible for the UFV above - about better and worse, places and potential forests for cellulose and other timber purposes - once again demonstrate that Governments, together, need to urgently establish good incentives and/or charges and /or maybe some penalties for large forestry and reforestation companies in Brazil (for pulp and the like). They all need to start exploring much more of degraded areas already well identified and perhaps even cataloged by the EMBRAPA AGROBIOLOGIA (about 101.0 million hectares) as per well described below, even if they have to invest a little more (which would be rewarded by the much better locations) and everything to promote a real internalized development and much needed by all of the Country in this crucial moment of our history as a united people and responsible environmentalist (not just for them).

The ideal is that, initially, the Central Government creates - URGENT - a new body (like the former "CAMPO") to create, to encourage, to finance in the long term, more to manage and to charge, etc., all in the form of a new plan for our agroforestry development and reforestation in places where we most need to recover soils, water or socio-environmentalism/develop –, that is, with specific, quick and urgent plans, but with long-term goals, and only for the purposes mentioned above.

As my proposal to forest-reforest, much faster, the already degraded areas and prevent further degradation due to the constant advances of bad projects of bad farmers/agricultural businessmen on our forests and similar, initially, I suggest creating an official program similar to the former JICA PRODECER – “Japanese-Brazilian Cooperation Program for the Agricultural Development of the Cerrados”(brazilian savannas), created in 1979 and which changed, rather quickly, the reality of all the Cerrados/Savannas of the Midwest region and other suitable locations) and which culminated in our current giant grain production ((currently 320 million tons/year, compared to just 41 million tons in 1979). After all, invariably, almost all abandoned and non-reforested/not recovered/not well-cultivated lands become, in the medium term, either lands devastated by erosion with no water sources or even almost no water sources (as in our semi-arid and other internal deserts in constant expansion) or become vast caatingas or cerrados. Contrary to what many think – with the strong crisis and many current world climate uncertainties – “Nature” is no longer able to recover by itself. See more dates of “the Japanese-Brazilian Cooperation Agreement old Program for the fast Agricultural Development of the Cerrados Internal Regions (Brazil savannas)” still in Portuguese at: https://www.jica.go.jp/brazil/portuguese/office/publications/c8h0vm000001w9k8-att/prodecer.pdf

Thus, in addition to our giant degraded areas, which urgently need to be reforested-recultivated in ILPFE forms  (or via similar projects such as the also very good MSF, ILF, ILP, SAFs and IPF projects) other major focuses would be progressive forest replacements/reforestation - very well designed/ implanted - from the current trees that do not sequester and are very slow in all Brazilian forest, mainly in the Amazon more in the Atlantic sea closer Forest more in the South Pine Forests more in the RPPN forest and also more in some artificial forests even for cellulose and for steel charcoal (pig iron production) etc...

Obviously, I am not here defending the felling of trees in our Amazon Forest or any other forests in the country and the world, not least because there would be immense damage to the soil, subsoil, waterways, air streams/rivers and all biomes and biotas. Also, I am not advocating here waiting for the natural recovery of the forests – as is often preached – as these occur in an uncontrolled and very slow manner.

What I am defending here is a new intelligent way, much faster and more socially and environmentally fair to sequester much more carbon per hectare/year by crops (also a great generator of jobs and fundamental developments in those places), well designed and well implanted - in areas already degraded or in degradation or already decimated by fires, lightning, mineral exploration and aquifers etc., - of new trees much faster and more efficient, as described, and also of crops that are even much more sequestering than those of the new trees above, such as new “spirillated” corn for ethanol production + DDG = animal feed.

In other words, everything will happen through progressive replacement of old or slowly native trees that almost no longer sequester Co2 in the above locations (and even crops that are not so sequestering or very nutritious, etc., such as cassava and/or poor food tubercles) or even implantations of many areas already available and/or in degradation, progressively migrating to thousands of different sizes of projects for forestation, reforestation and new other intensive and socioeconomic crops, much more positive for everyone, also environmentally). After all, it would be of no use to reduce Co2 and/or nitrous oxide (No2) and/or methane (Ch4) emissions if, to do so, we caused even greater environmental damage to people.

According to recent studies by our the ESALQ/USP Agr. University, in many regions of the Amazon Forest there is already a natural fertility - called soils "TPA Terras Pretas da Amazonia" (= ADE "Amazonian Dark Earths"), that is, with charcoal derivatives also containing many good bacteria from specific soils, as if they were a “peat” - and resulting from thousands of years of fast organic decomposition plus slow incorporation of coal (carbon) from the many non-criminal fires that occurred. See “Brazilian study suggests that Terra Preta (ADE) is the secret to reforesting the Amazon” but still in Portuguese at: https://revistagalileu.globo.com/ciencia/meio-ambiente/noticia/2023/05/estudo-brasileiro-sugere-que-a-terra-preta-seja-o-segredo-para-reflorestar -a-amazonia.ghtml

However, everyone today is only trying to solve only the problems of carbon and methane emissions, but the emissions of the infamous N2O gas - also known as laughing gas also called by the University of New York USA as "the "forgotten gas" - does not receive the attention it deserves.

Even though it is not the direct subject or focus of this article, I do not want to forget it, but, out of respect for the readers, I will describe just a little bit about it, more of its damage and what is done to try to mitigate or to fight them.

Recent world scientists from the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – reaffirmed that nitrous oxide accounts for about 6.0% of greenhouse gas emissions, and about 3/4 (or 75%) of these N2O emissions come from of agriculture, especially for in food production for animals and humans and/or for ethanol (fuel) by intensive grasses such as maize.

“Therein lies another of the Moretti's great dilemmas, because if we don't produce grains and other foodstuffs intensively and sufficiently, the people will die of hunger and quickly, but, on the other hand, if we overfertilize some soils for some specific crops and quickly in the places and at the wrong times, nitrous oxide destroys our air and humans in the long run, even sequestering far more carbon per hectare/year than the native trees and other crops.” Malignantly, the official Moretti's dilemma comes to argue us about “how to invest in life, when one is taken by death?”.

However, this N2O facts already equally affects all agricultural countries in the world and by 2020, nitrous oxide emissions have already increased by 30% compared to four decades earlier.

However, beneficially, it has already been proven that, with incentives in the right and sufficient ways, farmers will certainly fight also to reduce their N2O emissions.

In these cases, it is very important to know that nitrogen fertilizer leads to increased nitrous oxide emissions because farmers tend to apply nitrogen to their fields sometimes in large amounts during the year, and the crops are not able to use it all. When plant roots do not absorb the fertilizer, some of it runs off the field and to pollutes waterways. What remains is consumed by a succession of soil microbes that convert the ammonia to nitrite, then to nitrate, and finally back to N2 gas. The N2O is produced as a by-product at some points during this process.”

With so much environmental damage already done, and worse, much more potential, scientists are avidly searching for various ways to treat the soil and/or to adjust farming practices, all to reduce N2O production.

Among the main environmental and agricultural actions or research in progress, urgent, we have:

1) Only to applying fertilizers and carefully and when plants really need them or finding ways to maintain agricultural production with less nitrogen fertilizers all to would reduce these N2O emissions;

2) To making greater use of Precision Agriculture and No-Tillage, some plantations types that adopt remote sensing technologies to determine where and when to add nitrogen to fields, and in what quantity; which alone would help to reduce N2O creation by around 13% by 2030;

3) To expand the uses of so-called nitrification inhibitors; some chemicals that suppress the ability of microbes to transform ammonia into nitrate, preventing the creation of N2O and keeping nitrogen in the soil to be used by plants over a period of time longer, which would also help to reduce N2o creation by another more 13% by 2030”, totaling 26% less in addition to the previous item;

4) To pre-inoculate of seedlings more seeds with nitrogen-fixing bacteria of the “Kosakonia sacchari” type, which is already being sold by the US companies (the “Pivot bio”) and to reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers;

5) To promote incentives for the production of the enzyme nitrogenase, to be manufactured and also to be excreted by the new GMO soil bacteria, as above;

6) To make greater use and incentives for microbes that process soil organic matter;

7) To use much more micro-dripping in some much more sequential and very productive plantings, if possible, with fertigation dispensers for the very slow release of nitrogen, which, by itself, already to reduced N2o emissions by 70% in tomatoes.

Please see more data on “Climate change: the 'forgotten' gas that contributes 300 times more to the greenhouse effect than CO2” still in Portuguese at https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/vert-fut-57775100

So, urgent, it is necessary to have good projects - even if a little more expensive - for the necessary nitrifications, slower, of such cultures proposed above and if not yet "spirillated" (for their fundamental fast growths, in fact, as already happens with all grains, except with leguminous plants for human consumption more from leguminous trees for animals), in particular corn, wheat and/or sugar cane and/or grasses for fodder. Also, recent studies point out that in badly done and very fast nitrifications (excessive and/or very fast fertilization with nitrogen fertilizers) - when there are strong increases in local average temperatures - there is a possible release of a lot of nitrous oxide (NO2), this up to 310 times worse for global warming of the atmosphere than CO2 and up to 15 times more than methane (not least because NO2 remains in the atmosphere for 100 years to 500 years).  

Obviously, everything has to be well prospected, debated, implemented and, above all, well supported, as such techniques increase their original costs by 15% to 30%. See more details of “Nitrogen fertilizers are a double-edged sword for Brazil” still in Portuguese  in Portuguese at: https://epbr.com.br/fertilizantes-de-nitrogenio-sao-faca-de-dois-gumes-para-o-brasil/  . Regarding the damage caused by possible – but difficult – releases of nitrous oxide (although filterable and controllable and also very present in the very expensive burning and incineration of urban waste).

In addition, this can also be solved with the adoption of some scientific measures such as more concentrated fertilizers, with programmed releases, slower and better adjusted for each type of crop and location (that is, with much more efficient and intelligent use of fertilizers nitrified) and/or with the use of new varieties of spirillated crops, as in my proposal to greatly expand the cultivation of “spirillated” corn. See also “Biological nitrogen fixation can reduce GHG emissions in agriculture” still in Portuguese at: https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/8313328/fixacao-biologica-de-nitrogenio-pode-reduce-gee-emissions-in-agriculture .

In my recent article BETTER DETAILED ABOUT news revolutionary fast trees “versus” natural very slowly or sleepy trees and on this same site (with a high number of internal readings), I make some bold proposals that surprise many at first, but which later delight them and always in a highly scientific socio-environmental and energy vision, but also very developmental of my old propositions; please see if you read the Portuguese at: https://www.agrolink.com.br/colunistas/coluna/manter-arvores-adultas-e-esperteza-ou-crime-socioambiental-_473497.html?RefPR=4109). However, its English version of these my old propositions is even more accessed abroad; please see in English at: https://www.agrolink.com.br/colunistas/coluna/is-keeping-adult-tree-money-or-a-socio-environmental-error-_474379.html?RefPR=4109 .

In my other diagnosis, I also conclude there is no socioeconomic or developmental logic or even proven environmental and energy good gains - fast and fundamental - verifiable seriously and scientifically in the maintenance of old, even secular trees in our forests, as I prove above more below. In these my article, there are many comparable data on photosynthesis taxes/level by different cultures in diagnostics at American universities (see in English at https://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/images/chapters/bioen-scope_chapter10.pdf  ) plus a bold thesis below at UFMG and another, valiant, by an environmental field research agency in the Bragantina Zone of Pará (see this still in Portuguese at: https://brasil.mongabay.com/2020/03/absorcao-de-carbono-e-mais-lenta-do- what-expected-in-the-secondary-forests-of-the-amazonian-points-study/  ).

Here, y congratulate you very much, because we all know how such subjects are big "taboos" in Brazil and with disclosures almost prohibited by hundreds of NGOs "rogue environmentalists" and by the so-called "green press", most of which are very active in Brazil, although few or even ill-informed worldwide about it (perhaps even with other interests) and a good part operating quite only in “copy-pasting” and some, possibly, even producing and disseminating socio-environmentalist “fakes news” that are very harmful to the country. The heroic and courageous master's thesis at UFMG in 2014 - even comparing kidnappings/"applied photosynthesis" by many pastures and many grain crops in most states of Brazil - is that of Prof. Ms. Juliana Davis (please see “CO2 the balance in biomass and soil of areas agriculture in Brazil in a low carbon scenario” still in Portuguese at: https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/IGCM-AXAPL2/1/dissertacao_juliana_leroy_davis.pdf ). In addition, see also good the complete and giant socio-environmental diagnoses (779 pages) named the “Bioenergy & Sustainability: bridging the gaps” in English at: https://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/images/chapters/bioenergy_sustainability_scope.pdf MORE named the “Photobiological energy conversion” in English too at https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/0014-5793(76)80236-0. 

Worse still is that in Brazil some consultants, more so-called environmentalists, more lobbyists in the face of intensive and correct forest renewals and, thus, clearly against the country, etc., still ask me - primarily - why I mix levels of carbon capture by leaves and stems - of any crops - with rates of photosynthesis of the crops and/or with levels of chloroplasts and/or chlorophyll in the crops. OH, I ASK MYSELF, WHERE DID THESE PEOPLE REALLY STUDY?

The fact is that, in our tropical Amazonia, for example, forest renewal is very and very low, and, on average, trees are 186 years old, but there are also trees with 1,400 years old that are already recent discovered (in temperate climates in the world, the average age of trees are 322 years, according to the FAPESP Brazil Institute). Recently, a beautiful Angelim Vermelho tree, approximately 400 years old, was discovered in Brazil Amazon Forest, which reached 9.9 meters in circumference and 88.5 meters in height, the equivalent of a 30-story building.

The height and circumference may seem like a lot for many environmentalists, but the data showed above also proves, mathematically, that such an “the angelim tree” only grew a measly 22 centimeters per year, that is, it sequestered very little of our vital carbon and also produced almost no oxygen for humans, animals and biotas/biomes. In the well-researched/developed news trees above, such as the” mutambo tree” also described, the growth rate is very high of 200 cm per year (with up to 4 meters height at only 2 years old) and in “the white angico tree” reached a record of 250 cm of growth per year (it has 5 meters height at only 2 years old).

Comparing now real CO2 sequestration for such heights of such giant and old trees - very frequent and common throughout the Amazon and in other native forests in the Brazil (proven growth/minimum Co2 consumer and around only 22 cm per year, according to above, at most by triple, reaching 66 cm/year and with a mode of 40 cm/year) -, in a very simple way and also very objective and clear - with the average vertical height of 2.20 m of each corn stalk (this is a modal value, but can reach a height of 2.70 m/stalk), densely cultivated with modern technologies (highly consuming water + photosynthetic sunlight + locally sequestered carbon + much more organon minerals  fertilizers., etc.) it can be seen that the capturing reality of corn is much higher than that of those old trees and this without considering that corn extends many branches and ears for more than 1.5 m in its crown, that is, on its horizontal or lateral surface (all with many stems, actually culms with meritalos; + wide and long leaves + ears + husks of such ears etc., all with fast growth and highly carbon sequestration, for that ).

Thus, while an adult tree is more common in the Amazon and can grow only 40 cm per year (mode), each corn plant can grow 550 cm, = 0.55 m (mode too) – so around 14 times more - also in just 01 year (equal to 2.20 m of the average height of each crop 'versus” up to 2.5 crops per year). These are high considered numbers and differences, around 14 times more - all highly favorable to corn planting even just for carbon sequestration/oxygen emissions, when and if they are the cases (eg, severe future reduction in O2 levels plus the corresponding expansion of Co2 and with many deaths of humans and animals) -, but which we also need to demonstrate now and here, and details of the average fixations in kg/hectare/year of each crop, pasture or tree can be seen in the links above, at diagnostics special in the USA more at UFMG Brazil.

These conclusions, for example, that dense corn modern cultures with an average of 60,000 plants/hectare (varies from 30 to 90,000 plants) in up to 3 crops/year (total of up to 180,000 very fast plants per year and with very high water demands + of sunlight + millions of t of CO2 per hectare/year) or Even the permanent the Parica SEQUESTER MUCH MORE CARBON - measured in kg/hectare/year - than about 990 static/permanent trees per hectare and with an average of 180 years and with crowns averages of 30 m each (thus, 33 squared per hectare/year) THEY ARE SO PRIMARY AND SECOND DEGREE THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY REALLY WANT TO PLAY MORE TO FORGET THE FUNDAMENTAL AND BASIC MATHEMATICS.

Obviously, in these last cases and in all those new trees and legumes described above and proposed by me - as well as socio-environmentally miraculous - have carbon sequestration per hectare/year at high levels that is much higher than in current adult and very slow trees in the Amazon.

Idem of the socioeconomic and developmental uses obtained with the adequate processing for good timber – local-regional/certificates – of its good trunks/woods only of those new trees - for real and much more evolved storage of its carbons for hundreds of years - no longer in the soils -, but, modernly, in furniture and innumerable and fundamental civil construction items.

According to data from my other diagnosis mentioned above, in terms of compared levels of speeds plus volumes of real carbon sequestration per hectare year (compared rates of photosynthesis or chlorophyll/chloroplasts taxes) by the so-called North American and English universities plus the Brazil UFMG plus the Brazil Institute research in the Bragantina Zone of the Pará State (The Amazon Forest), such new trees are second only in terms of real carbon sequestration - measured in kilograms per hectare/year. These Brazil Amazon/Bahia/Paraná etc. zones, with very fast new trees, even if they are small, only lose to grasses grown for forage (such as Napier cutting grass in the Brazil/Africa more miscanthus grass in the US) more than spirillated maize with intensive cultivation (up to 3 crops per year with 3,5-4,0 months each) for ethanol more for DDG (by-product feed for pigs and poultry) in Brazil more for some young and revolutionary trees in Brazil mentioned above more for sugar cane, also in Brazil. It is well worth reading and well analyzing, previously, these my diagnosis, because, as I said, such all subjects more environmental technics above are taboo in Brazil and that the hundreds of NGOs "rogue environmentalists" plus the so-called green press almost prohibit divulging or even writing about it here. About the cultivation of “spirillated”/” inoculated” corn - with much less use of chemical fertilizer so that is also more sustainable - please see “Bacteria increase corn productivity and reduce chemical fertilizers “still in Portuguese https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/2467608/bacterias-aumentam-produtividade-do-milho-e-reduzem-adubos-quimicos .

Such very slow and old trees from the forests of Brazil, in addition to being much more susceptible to lightning and forest fires, almost always have giant circulating crowns with up to 40 m2/tree, as mentioned, and which prevent sunlight from promoting intensive photosynthesis on the floors below of the canopy and where the same canopies almost prevent the arrival of rainwater. We know that without sun and without water, there is almost no fundamental photosynthesis and with the real capture of carbon (and its storage in the woods) and, thus, the In my humble view and proposal, there is almost no really sustainable and real socio-environmental growth.

The End.

THE VIVAMELHOR AMBIENTAL CONSULTING

BRAZIL – The Brasília Town (DF) and The Porto Seguro City (BA) - May 19, 2023

If necessary, contact me by email: [email protected]

 [cs1]

 [cs2]