Is keeping adult tree MONEY or a socio-environmental ERROR?

Climaco Cezar de Souza


Is keeping adult tree MONEY or a socio-environmental ERROR?


Although the question and the title above can even be interpreted as a "provocation", since most citizens of the world and Brazil - including consultants, politicians, environmentalists and even teachers and part of the specialized press in Brazil - have always been very trained / well convinced and for many years to understand, to respond and to teach/profess that maintaining mature trees is fundamental as a full – and quick – for worldwide environmental solution

Below, y and without any commercial and/or lobbying interest.. say for your analyses (actually, they are very basic physical-chemical explanations and that we already learned in our high school, but that many of us even forgot) as y remember you.

Please, first of all, I also need you to understand that at no time will I suggest deforestation, reforestation or illegal occupations or occupations that are poorly planned or implemented in any forest or similar areas, but that - due to the environmental urgency of the sequestration of much more Co2 than at current levels -, I suggest and encourage changing/improving the way we think together to install/recover/reforest/recultivate millions of hectares of new projects (even old ones), but in much more sustainable ways and much more kidnapping, real , of carbon, than in the current view of the majority, as you will see.

I will try to prove with diagnostics, research and intensive surveys - much more abroad than here - plus a lot of comparative data that, unfortunately, the exact opposite is already happening - that is, that the summed sequestration of Co2 by adult trees is not, or never was or not will be enough to offset their added emissions.

All this happens, unfortunately, maybe due to a series of errors and lack of courage in researching and/or disclosing the evidence, even visible from the field in the form of natural disasters in amplifying more of climate changes at each more severe and with greater losses; more murderous and much more difficult to mitigate. Worse is that most of the protections, almost demanded, of adult trees occur exactly in Brazil, a giant agroforestry more sugar-alcohol producer, biodiesel, livestock and extractive country too, but, where applied and comparative research maybe little acts, or little to divulges, about, maybe even with fears or with other interests.

We may even be being led and/or dominated by some smart people and/or rentiers/lobbyists, who are more interested in our socio-environmental and scientific backwardness or delay, which will certainly harm/will harm them and their families, environmentally in medium and long term. Worse is that it happens much more especially if you live in more industrialized countries and/or much more polluting with oil derivatives, natural gas and other minerals, such as mineral coal, and other gases that are still very harmful to human lives, animals, plants, etc. Such countries already to be destroyed everything and never replanted their forests or recultivated their soils in an efficient and visible way, all for much more efficient and faster mitigation of their CO2 and other very harmful gases and continuously released into the atmosphere.

Now, the same may already be happening quickly and here, perhaps also due to inductions/false support from foreign countries and/or their sham environmentalists”. Currently, in Brazil the total planted area already reaches almost 98.0 million hectares (about 75.0 million with grains, including overlapping areas with second-crop corn and millet, etc.), our total area already well degraded is, absurdly, between 150.0 million and 200.0 million hectares. Obviously, almost all of it could and should be being properly replanted and/or reforested with new trees that are much more suitable and/or fast crops that absorb much more CO2, all in a socio-environmental way that is much more favorable/verifiable, especially if with very modern technologies and already fully available in Brazil as the ILPFE and/ or the MFS and well-technical/supervised reforestation - see below.

Also, fortunately, the many very credible scientific all serious data below to prove that there is no point in trying to preserve mature trees anywhere in the world, especially in tropical forests, as this is a huge socio-environmental error that is continued / well supported by some and already well proven scientifically (although fearfully in Brazil). In fact, scientific field data and below to point and to prove that Preserve mature trees programs by Governmental/NGO incentives  were replaced, from now on, for a strategic and 03 technically initials well-programmed way (especially for the ILPFE more for the MFS plus for the well-technical/monitored reforestation current Programs), the world levels of real sequestration and correct storage of Co2 ( non-emissions) could even increase tenfold compared to current levels (in a ratio of 1/11, according to comparative studies on photosynthesis rates in young trees and in regeneration “versus” in adult trees, said to be primary, in the Bragantina area of the PA State in our rain forest region). Also, in the master's theses below - based on international and internal data about the real effectiveness of photosynthesis at the field level – that to prove a positive relationship of up to 40 times greater Co2 capture in some rapid cultivations (up to 2.5 possible crops per year, as in the case of rainfed or irrigated corn special culture, in both cases with a delay of only 5 months between planting and harvesting) than for adult trees with giant crowns (which take up to 40 years to grow and then to be possibly devoured by non-criminal forest fires and other forms)

After all, even though so many adult trees have been saved for years in many parts of the world, especially Brazil - as almost everyone propagates/defends even nervously – why daily and everywhere climate changes continue to amplify and to worsen??

Today the most common socio-environmental mainly world questions are:

  1. Why has the climate in my region changed so much lately and is it raining or drying much more and in months that were not normal?
  1. Why "the São Pedro (the “San Peter Sanctun” thought to be the eternal regulator of rainfall over the world's climates) doesn’t better to regulate its taps to rain much more in places where such rains are needed, reducing its excesses in places that need much less and/or that already have enough rain and water?
  1. Why roads more poor neighborhoods and more much homes in many cities have been decimated for the past 20 years by successive landslides and/ or floods, all with difficult solutions and with many deaths, especially the neediest and without housing and without adequate support?
  1. Idem for containment dams of mining companies and similar etc.?
  1. Why at last years are there many wild more until ferocious animals comes from wild more stingers and bloodsuckers many types of flies more mosquitoes/ cockroaches/scorpions/snakes etc. continuously invading much more our urban areas, bringing many more diseases and being fought, intensely, even with dangerous insecticides?

After all severe climate change, which has been recurring worldwide for some 20 years, RESULTS, OR NOT, FROM LITTLE LEVELS OF REAL CAPTURES OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ALREADY EXISTING/INCREASING AND/OR ITS INEFFICIENT STORAGE BY ADULT TREES IN MANY FORESTS PROTECTED IN THE WORLD? (almost all still insist on supporting/even fighting for the very low actual capture by adult trees - as will be seen below -, in the face of other forms and sources that are much more efficient, socio-environmentally, as proven below, and others to take advantage of/process, in socio-environmental and energetically positive forms, garbage, biomass, residues, etc.);



WHICH ALSO HAPPENS WITH OTHER WORSE GASES ALSO RELEASED TO THE ATMOSPHERE BY THE LARGEST AND GROWING INDUSTRIAL/OIL/PLASTIC COMPANY/URBAN CONSUMER/VAMPIRES-RENTISM ETC. WORLDWIDE MORE, PROPORTIONALLY, JUST A LITTLE DUE TO THE FEW RURAL FIRE OR BURNING, whether criminal or not, via deforestation for reforestation and/or for production of food crops and/or pastures/new forests. All are  items more possible world Programs  much more efficient in capturing carbon than to preserve or to protect the adult trees, as will be seen below, and fully implantable in good and modern responsible projects of ILPFE – the Integration Crop-Livestock-Forest-Extractives Brazil Technical Programs and/or the MSF – the Sustainable Forest Management Brazil Programs too more for some types of socio-environmentally serious reforestation with fast grow?/ (much faster trees and/or shrubs - with a maximum cycle of 5 to 10 years - such as trees also originating from the tropical forest and already with many leaves and shrub and/ or food animal/human legumes some with good stems for sawn wood as: the paricá, guanandi, leucena tree, fava tree, mesquite, guandu, rubber tree, banana trees and even including some eucalyptus and pine).


Initially, I mention that I am very impressed by the immense difficulties of finding comparative research specially in the same places but all for Co2 mitigation’s different sources in Brazil? Why the Brazil still have few simple data and even unreliable about the photosynthetic efficiencies of adult trees, young trees in substitution and the main crops, including forestry over sugarcane, coffee, corn, and other fundamentals for comparisons of annual Co2 mitigations per hectare? Why also have in Brazil few dates about the efficiency in form of the annual production of biomass per hectare/year, which would be a good comparative indicator of effective carbon sequestration and oxygen production by different plants? My biggest surprise is that we are a country considered a world model of agricultural more forestry research and production. Abroad, as seen below, they comparatives data are offered and published in droves and with full and free access.

However, there are few - but great and courageous - master's theses published by few Universities in the PR, PA, MG and SP states (here published and supported by the USP more the FAPESP Research Brazil Unit). Meanwhile, even those MS researchers below are still to compare some data only from different sparse or dispersed sources and/or from different periods and places. It seems to me, there is almost no research really applied and comparing everything together and in the same places (which is not good scientifically). It even seems that they hide or are afraid to show such results. Then, sometimes and with some ease, I have to appeal to world literature until they compare them together and in the same places and, better, they are not afraid of being questioned or quoted.

Scientifically, it is known that “the efficiency of converting sunlight into biomass, which can be observed in bulk crops is generally much lower (from 35% to 80%) because energy losses occur in several steps during the conversion of carbon dioxide into organic carbon (and others from CHON) driven by light”. Thus, “both photosynthesis or photovoltaic systems absorb high energy light, but plants are almost 100% efficient at absorbing light from the visible spectrum – the range of colors from red to blue (quite unlike solar photovoltaics with real absorption from only 15% to 20%, and even from solar heliothermic captures)”.

Technically: “in addition to mature trees plus growing trees more from crops and harvests, biomass includes wood and food crops such as sugar cane and maize, and also by-products such as agricultural residues - e.g., corn stover (straw) and rice husks - plus various types of waste in addition to food waste, such as vegetable oil recycled from cooking processes. As biomass comes mainly from plants and vegetation that grow naturally and cumulatively (including its residues plus its urban and rural waste more human and animal feces and leftovers from crops and wood processing, extractives, food, etc.). So also, all it is a renewable resource or, better, it may even be sustainable, as long as it does not release, or only glimpses, a well-researched/authorized minimum of Co2 and other gases. Additionally, we need to remember that “a good part of which has already been proven to be captured and at higher levels, during growths - in positive photosynthetic forms; see below - of your base/primary crops”.

Let's now see a little about the levels and efficiencies of photosynthetic conversions of chlorophylls/chloroplasts into biomass (carbon storage and others) by means of the levels of sunlight incident on more sites and different plants.

Although fundamental for human more for biomes, biotas – and mainly for forests, crops, extractives, soils, subsoil, other energies, etc. that is for the environment as a whole – the solar energy sometimes, in not scientifically form, still it is very misunderstood and even misused or goes on a lot for the benefit of some false environmental protectors and little, or nothing, for real socio-environmental or energetic/developmental projects.

For example, in my humble opinion, there are frequent acts, enshrined as right, but which even become real environmental crimes, such as preventing/defaulting/denying/fighting the sacred and ancient solar-intensive physical-chemical phenomena of the photosynthesis, much larger in trees new and in fast growth phasis. It is scientifically known that there are many impediments in adult trees - alive or dead - for intensive and fundamental photosynthesis, both due to the lack of sun light access from trees growing below and for other smaller plants; most on the 2nd and 3rd floors below. Also, the big adult tree crown (some up 30 square meters in the Amazon Forest) to prevent the rains reaching them and also for the intense shading, which only greatly favors weeds and/or competitors of possible natural substitute trees of the same species. Even in fast and very closed cultivations (shortly spaced) of eucalyptus, pine and rubber trees this fact commonly occurs.

It is true that such a slow and natural replacement of giant trees by new ones - or even their maintenance for many years until lightning and/or fire decimate them - has occurred naturally for millions of years, but it is also good to remember that before there was no our current consumerist society. Current we are much more industrial and oil/plasticizing and mining people etc. all to release much more carbon and other gases into the atmosphere.

Thus, in my view, such environmental solutions can no longer depend only on the very slow natural changes in course and, for the sake of men, animals, plants, biomes, biotas – more on jobs, incomes, collections and local-regional human developments, also energy/comfort/good food and risk-free housing, etc. It’s true that the current scientific man has to create more to implement new methods and new ways much faster and much more efficient to accelerate such much greater captures of Co2 and other atmospheric gases. Otherwise, it would be a great irresponsibility towards those who gave us so much intelligence to solve many problems created by many of us (not all). Also, really, it will be much better storing such Co2 in new trees and other crops – fast - more in the form of furniture and for building materials, all to reduce their burning and/or to relaunch Co2, as much happens with adult trees.

Such almost impediments to the access of the miraculous sunlight plus of the rains to the lower floors and to the local soils of the homogeneous or closed forests and with millions of adult trees greatly affect the greatest local CO2 sequestration and its storage in the trunks in the best way. Today, adult trees still are very protected monument of humanity (a big mistake and continued) although have little studied due to lack of courage, etc. mainly by his defensive segments all very well protected/profitable/united/unified and even by some defenders/environmental teachers/press/websites.

Everything - after all even harmful/erroneous - occurs due to the intensive/protected presence of millions of tree tops - adult, dead or useless - and with almost 30 m2 of coverage/shading/crown of the skirt of each tree, especially in the Amazon Forest.

In fact, everything is done to protect millions of trees that, today, are only configured as large parasols plus umbrellas and very impeding the much greater photosynthesis - see below - in the leaves and branches that is much more intensive in the new trees plus much more modern and faster and that some, brave, from abroad more than the state of PA prove and disclose (see below). As demonstrably, the rates of photosynthesis is 5 to 11 times greater in the leaves and branches of trees in growth - in felling or planting or replanting - than in other adult or old trees and all because of the so-called chlorophyll-chloroplast effect (with much more local CO2 consumption - more stocks in bodies news trees (trunks and roots) - and the same rates of O2 production).

Chlorophyll-chloroplasts are “the pigment responsible for capturing light and ensuring that photosynthetic organisms are able to produce their food through the process of photosynthesis”. “Often, a constant is used to describe only in this young tree capacity (0.83-0.85), which means that if the new leaf absorbs between 83% to 85% of incident light and green light, it is an important source of energy. carbon fixation inside”.

Also, as possible initial field evidence, to the contrary, that “keeping adult trees can be a big mistake or a big socio-environmental and until a possible continuous crime socio-environmental and anti-developmentalist, which already shows its harmful effects, now, I present to you some data from the courageous world site Mongabay below (with data collected/researched from brave researchers from the Bragantina Region of our State of PA – Brazil Rain Forest) that the real photosynthesis rate (chlorophyll-chloroplasts) is up to 11 times higher in young trees when compared to adult trees.

Thus, socio-environmentally it is proven - for still few serious scientists and researchers and local developers (not for sale) - that the maintenance of mature trees in forests is not correct (as the uninformed majority defends, INCLUDING OTHER SCIENTISTS, GOVERNMENT BODIES AND POWERFUL SITES, BUT ALWAYS AIMING SOMETHING FINANCIAL OR PROMOTIONAL) and without properly storing carbon.

Much better - and more durable and with much lower risks - would be if all forest Co2 were really stored in a simple, cheap and profitable way in furniture and/or construction materials or – already as biomasses sources - goes to much syngas production (for fast and very cheap electric microregional generation). The already mentioned in energetic/storable syngas to can produce many more jobs, developments and local/regional revenues and STILL NOT RUNNING risks of forest fires caused by lightning, small fires caused by slash-and-burn only for local food subsistence crops and other causes (see more proofs below).

In general (see ): Theoretically (almost like propaganda of most NGOs and who can earn a lot for this): “Forests sequester carbon from the air and store it as they grow, providing an essential service for a world where humanity is rapidly increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and escalating the climate crisis”. However, honestly and historically for some, it is also known that secondary forests - felled, disturbed or regenerating - that have been cleared or disturbed - are known to have a high potential for greater good carbon sequestration, with some studies suggesting that carbon capture from these regenerating forests can be up to 11 times greater than that of primary forests”.

It seems to me, then, that everything happens only in order to protect trees that have ended their cycle, even with very wrong postulates as published by the G1 Brazilian website that, because they are much older, they store much more historical carbon, which is obviously, by the daily accumulation of Co2 sequestration plus its stock in trunks and in trees aged 30 or over 80 years until it is completely destroyed by termites or other insects or by lightning or by non-criminal forest fires and even by self-combustion of neighboring biomasses, as in dry pastures or  dry weeds. In Brazil, forest and agricultural biomass has high risks of self-combustion (see in Portuguese in ). Please about this see also in English “Assessment of self-ignition risks of solid biofuels by thermal analysis” disponible in: . Also see: “Combustion of Aboveground Wood from Live Trees in Megafires, CA, USA” disponible at:

They seem to forget, also cunningly, that these trees, even loaded with a lot of stored carbon, become easy targets for lightning and forest fires and that it would be much better if - even in a forgotten socio-developmental vision that is very necessary in these places - they were shot down at the right time to release the full growth of those on the lower floors trees or fast densified below cultures only 2 to 4 meters tall and as predicted and proven in the paragraph above the previous one. So, all the Co2 now intensively captured by the leaves and shoots of each new tree/culture/reforestation/extractives, now stored in its trunks and branches, would be much better stored in the socio-environmental fair way of furniture and many items for construction civil. It could also, easily and much more cheaply and effectively, go on to produce its own or collective electricity (I didn't see its burning|), but via modern and fast syngasifications of its biomass and residues, all for the production of a lot of syngas (cooling, purified and with a high content, even above 45%, of the very expensive highly energetic h2 for immediate use, even because it is very dangerous and transport/storage is very difficult). See more syngas data below.

Thus, a lot of residual wood and adult/old trees well identified/to be replaced - even cultivated for that purpose - could be destined - plus a lot of biomasses and its residues - to produce many syngas of biomass and raw gross waste (firstly always in the fundamental and required format of RDF " refuse derived fuel” with up to 14% humidity and up to 3 cm length). Such fast syngasifications machines of agro-forestry biomass plus processing residues, food leftovers, human and animal feces, cultivated grasses, cultivated trees, etc. are already widely used in Asia – specially rice husk more cocoa/palm oil - and Europe as direct fuels for immediate burning more to modern and efficient clean electrical generation in motor generators, emitting only a minimum Co2 and already cooled/filtered. Such syngas is very rich in h2 (up to 45% and for immediate use) can also to be burned in very modern in "fire tubes" for reheating and storage - for up to 72 hours straight (and almost without thermal losses) of many volumes for fast more continuous re-heaters of circulating heat transfers fluids (HTF) - all non-petroleum but derived from fertilizers (“molten/salt” or LANX500 or Therminol VP 2). In the end, this whole revolutionary socio-environmental/energetic new system - correct, very efficient and great local development - will only release a little of CO2 (already, obligatorily, well washed and well filtered by scrubbing and other machines) and goes to high electrical generation and/or micro-regional heating more for very developmental even because they have much lower losses and very reduced costs with transmissions.

Also, it is technically known, and at a world level, that “at higher latitudes, intensive solar photosynthesis it is only possible in spring-summer, that is, from three to five months/year and very much with short-cycle crops, such as maize or beet”. That is, it occurs with growth of the entire plant, through much local respiration of carbon gas and expiration of oxygen and which occurs in about 70% - 80% in its new leaves and taller and new branches. Only in Brazil and Africa does it occur every 12 months/year”, which could greatly benefit them commercially more to reduce their various costs.

Now, take a good look and analyze - with OTHER TYPES OF DATA COMPARED TO PROVE THE ABOVE ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTISE - that THE BEST ANNUAL DRY BIOMASS PRODUCTION RATES MEASURED IN TONES/HECTARE (column 1 of table 10.1 in English) ARE NOT THE NATIVE TREES (some from Europe) or cultivated (eucalyptus from Brazil), BUT AS OF  THE NAPIER VERTICAL GRASS (a very fast and tall forage for animal feed in this case being cultivated in San Salvador a Central America Country and for fodder and/or for production of electricity by burning as it already does in Brazil). In the sequence of better real Co2 capture effectiveness, we have the SUGAR CANE for sugar or for ethanol (even the latter is not really sustainable, due to the high burning of bagasse) plus the MISCANTHUS a medium vertical grass in the USA and for fodder or hay for animals. Completing the list of the best Co2 scavenger, we have data of the CORN GRAIN in the USA. Everything can be consulted and better analyzed in the excellent diagnosis in english (compiled by researchers from the USA more England and with some data comes from the USP and the ÚNICA, both from Brazil), also, at least, published by FAPESP Brazil Research on the website: /images/chapters/bioen-scope_chapter10.pdf  - but with much more US and EU reliable data.


See more data in the complete study in English (779 pages by many scientists) and with hundreds of environmental, energy and sustainability sources comparisons at:

In another great source of OTHER TYPES OF DATA, serious and also many that proof of the low effectiveness of adult trees (now compared photosynthetic efficiencies), see and analyze the data in tables 2 and 3 of the excellent and old diagnosis “Bioenergy for Tomorrow” by the University of London – England), available at:

With them, it is possible to compare the % levels of photosynthetic efficiencies (chlorophyll/chloroplasts for CHON), both in crops, trees and extractives in photosynthetic conversion FROM TOTAL SOLAR RADIATION and received in different countries and with climates well different (temperate, tropical and sub-tropical) ditto of soils, rainfall and water availability, forests etc...

Right from the start, it can be seen clearly that the % levels of photosynthesis levels by solar absorption of FORAGE grass vertical crops are much higher than those OF GRAIN CROPS AND TREES AND EXTRACTIVES.


Therefore, it is noted that the best way of classifying AND TO COMPARE CO2 CAPTURES LEVELS BETWEEN ADULT TREES “versus” YOUNG TREES “versus” DIVERSE CROPS MORE EUCALYPTUS AND FORAGES AND EVEN PASTURES is to use the photosynthesis rates per m2, well expressed in “grams/ m2/day” as it is contained in columns 02 of each table.

In another quick comparison, it can be seen that some tropical crops such as pearl millet (grown for animal feed, including in succession to soy-grain, also for “mulching”/protective/improving mulch) THE LEVELS ARE MUCH HIGHER AND, THEREFORE, THEY ARE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE in collecting Co2. The same occurs with marine or cultivated algae (including for biodiesel production); more with Sudan grass more with Napier vertical grass (both for animal fodder feeds); more with all corn types and even with sugar cane. Current, in environmental terms, the sugar cane is considered only clean and renewable (sugar more various purposes, including ethanol) but this is not considered sustainable, due to high CO2 emissions from burning bagasse and others.

Note that the photosynthesis rates of the analyzed crops - both in tropical, subtropical and temperate areas -, are average or much lower than the rates of the items described above.

Also, you take note that the level of photosynthesis in dry biomass (table 03) of trees in temperate regions and savannahs (“the cerrados” or the best Brazil grain areas) is very low and it is about only 10% compared to the average of the largest/best above. Unhappy it has no data on rates of rainforest trees.

Also, although still largely based on data from diverse or dispersed sources (not compared in the same places and in the same years, as would be better), Prof. Ms Juliana Davis (UFMG; 2014) presents OTHER EXCELLENT COMPARED DATA OF CATCHES MORE OF CARBON STOCKS AND USES (IN SUMMARY OF APPLIED PHOTOSYNTHESIS) OCCURRED IN TREES, PERMANENT CROPS, TEMPORARY CROPS (GRAINS) AND EVEN IN PASTURES AND, BETTER, IN MANY BRAZIL STATES.

See at Portuguese more English abstract:

Analyzing the various tables presented and compared here, it is noted that a common and better comparable data between the various items above (being this main object of this article much more to delineate the annual catches of the items in the places and not the annual sum or in their useful life) IS THE LEVEL OF “AVERAGE CARBON STOCK”, EXPRESSED IN “MG DE C/HA”. THIS IS THE BEST THING TO ANALYZE, NOT IMPORTING SO MUCH ITEMS LIKE THE AGE OR THE DENSITY OF THE PLANTS/CROPS OR THE TOTAL LIFE OF EACH ITEM, AS SOME ONG AND WEBSITES STILL INSIST TO MAKE (these data are expressed in the maximum accumulated carbon in Mg of C /ha) NOR THE ANNUAL AVERAGE INCREMENT OF CATCHES OCCURRED (here in mg of C/ha/year).

Here (tables 4, 5 and 6), therefore and a according to researcher and author, we are very SURPRISED with the average Co2 storage levels per hectare year (dates at MG of C/HA or at MG/HA of total carbon) of the EUCALYPTUS, CANE, ORANGE, COFFEE, CORN AND FROM PASTURES ESTABLISHED in the savanna’s grains region (the cerrados of Brazil) or even in planted pastures areas in Brazil swamp (Pantanal) more in rain forest regions (some Amazon areas), EXCEPT IN ALL PASTURES ALREADY DEGRADED AREAS MORE IN THE NORTHEAST BRASIL CAATINGA GIANT REGION OR SOUTH BRAZIL SMALL PAMPAS AREA.

Current storages for grains, except corn as above, are minimal or average compared to the others.

In figure 4, according to researcher and author, it can be seen that in 2011 only the planted forests area in MG accounted for around 44% of the carbon stocks of all permanent crops in Brazil (mainly forests, except native), and, in sum, of planted forests throughout the country already stored 86% of the total stock of carbon stored in permanent crops in the Brazil country.

There were projections of high increases in the storage of planted forests until 2022, but with strong reductions foreseen in storage in MG, compared to strong increases estimated by other States, especially with eucalyptus, when, in sum, they would stock 93% of the total CO2 in permanent crops from the country.



Honestly, it is known that the production, storage, transport and exportation or sales of hydrogen, of any kind, they consume a lot and a lot of fundamental electrical energy from clean and even sustainable sources (which could be better used very cheaply, without risks and with minimal losses in the nearby and already consolidated collection networks of these generating sources and to recharge EV electric vehicles in outlets from recharging stations over millions of neighboring homes). On the contrary, as is the current energy trend (for very high profits for a few and even 100% against consumers), everything is done and encouraged to produce dangerous, expensive and difficult to transport, etc. green hydrogen (if it is gaseous, it has to be pressed at 650 bar and if it is a liquid it has to be frozen at -30o C) and which, in the end, will be used internally to produce electrical energy for vehicles in hydrogen cells. It is very clear, scientifically and environmentally, that is, a huge worldwide error in progress and encouraged by many with little or no real environmental and comparative side view, but who just want to keep making a lot more profit and also keep polluting even more). It seems that everything, in fact, is to disguise or cover up and to continue producing and making a lot of profit from the production of gray or brown or red hydrogen or other types, these coming from very dirty and non-renewable sources (the majority come from petroleum derivatives, natural gas, mineral coal and even nuclear sources).

My very thanks you for reading more for reviewing and for sharing.

If necessary or want to help you, contact me by email: [email protected]

December 22, 2022


Assine a nossa newsletter e receba nossas notícias e informações direto no seu email

Usamos cookies para armazenar informações sobre como você usa o site para tornar sua experiência personalizada. Leia os nossos Termos de Uso e a Privacidade.