The "Green Lungs of the Earth" Myth

02/20/2019 12:00 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
This must be the environmental myth with the deepest roots of them all (pun intended). It's compulsory subject matter in public schools around the globe, it's passed from generation to generation and if you dare to question it in public, disbelieve, rejection, jeering and even exclusion from the conversation will be your treat. That's the typical way people react when their beliefs and primary "knowledge" are challenged.

The myth:

Woods, forests and jungles are Earth's "Green Lungs" that generate and produce the oxygen we need to breath and live.

It is understood that the woods, forests, and jungles mentioned in this myth have a constant size and weight, they're supposed to generate the oxygen without expanding their extension.

The link between plants and oxygen is closely related to the carbon cycle. When CO2 is consumed, oxygen is released and vice versa. So, let's take a look at the carbon cycle, as depicted in the image above.

The "Green Lungs" phase of the cycle

Like most myths, this one has some factual background. Plants consume CO2, water and energy (sunlight) in a process called photosynthesis. This process produces oxygen and carbon compounds (sugars). The oxygen is released into the atmosphere and the carbon compounds are used for the plant to grow.

The problem is that the myth stops here and does not tell the other part of the cycle.

The oxygen consumption phase

Some the oxygen and carbon compounds that were produced during the daylight hours are consumed by "Plant respiration". This process is opposite to photosynthesis and produces CO2, water and energy.

Most of the carbon compounds, however, will stay inside the plant and are used for leaf growth or stored in the stem and roots. This way the whole plant grows.

In autumn some plants lose their leaves. Branches will break off and fall down during storms and some plants will die. This produces organic litter that accumulates on the ground. The litter decomposes, consuming oxygen and producing CO2.
Wildfires will periodically burn parts of the forests. Burning wood consumes oxygen and produces CO2 and other compounds.
Sooner or later, all plants and trees die. They fall to the ground, decompose and all the carbon compounds that were stored in their stems will decompose, consuming oxygen and producing CO2.
Although it takes time, even the roots will decay and be decomposed, consuming oxygen through a process called soil respiration.

Ultimately, all the oxygen that was initially released into the atmosphere will be consumed by the oxidation processes: plant respiration, decomposition, soil respiration, and (possibly) combustion.
As plants in woods, forests and jungles are in different stages of their lives, all these processes happen at the same time. Some processes, however, depend on the season so we must consider the yearly total in order to include all seasons. Some years our trees might suffer more wildfires than other years, so we have to take the yearly average and conclude that:

The average yearly oxygen balance of wood, forest or jungle with a constant size equals zero.


Contrary to general belief, the only way to obtain a temporary, positive effect on the oxygen balance for existing woods, forests or jungles is to cut them down.

The timber must be treated with chemicals like varnish or paint in order to prevent decomposition. This has only a temporary effect because ultimately, the furniture, houses and other objects that are produced and constructed with the timber will be burned, consumed by insects or otherwise destroyed, ultimately leading to the decomposition of the timber and the corresponding oxygen consumption.

Atmospheric CO2 distribution

The CO2-concentration is higher in the regions with mature tropical rainforests, where emissions from decaying organic material are higher than the amount of CO2 consumed by growing plants

The oxygen cycle

If the oxygen we breath does not come from the natural woods, forests and jungles, then where does it come from?
It's true that the Earth's oxygen cycle is based on photosynthesis, but the surplus that is used for human consumption and fossil fuel combustion comes from the oceans. In fact, almost half of the Earth's photosynthesis takes place in the oceans and it is known that the small marine bacteria "Prochlorococcus" is responsible for almost 25% of all photosynthesis on Earth.

Now that the myth is busted, let's take a look at some solutions that do have a positive effect on the local or global oxygen balance.

Local "Green Lungs"

There is a way to create an artificial, local "Green Lungs" effect if the two parts of the carbon cycle take place at different locations. For example, consider a well-maintained city park or trees planted alongside city streets. The photosynthesis phase takes place within the city boundaries while all litter (leaves, branches) is collected and taken out of the city for decomposition. That's where the oxygen consumption phase takes place. In this case, the city parks and trees will help to compensate for the additional oxygen consumption caused by the city traffic and the respiration of population concentrations.

Planting more trees

Initially, planting more trees and creating more woods has a positive effect on the oxygen balance. During the first years of their lives, the oxygen-producing "Green Lungs" photosynthesis phase of the carbon cycle is more important than the oxygen consumption phase. When the wood matures and the growth slows or stops, oxygen consumption will eventually equal the oxygen production and the positive effect ends. That's the moment to check if the trees have enough natural offspring. If not, the process will revert and the oxygen balance will turn negative, ultimately wiping out all the positive results we initially obtained.

Taking care of our natural environment

Although the conception that jungles, forests, and woods are Earth's "Green Lungs" is false, there are other reasons to preserve and take care of the Earth's natural environments, reasons like bio-diversity and beautiful scenery. But that, of course, is no excuse at all to justify spreading half-truths, myths and propaganda or even worse, the intentional indoctrination of children during their education at public or private schools.

Tom van Leeuwen, February 2019.


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

An estimation of the human influence on the climate

The month of May has come to an end. Another month of economic paralysis and reduced human CO2 emissions. And again, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise to record levels in modern measurements.

It is time to remove the blindfolds and thoroughly analyze the question of the effect of human CO2 emissions on global temperature. I propose to divide the problem into four issues, open for discussion:

Sydney Sea-Level Rise

According to the IPCC CO2-hypothesis, rising CO2-levels leads to warming. That warming supposedly expands sea-water and melts glaciers and polar ice-caps, finally resulting in rising sea-levels. They warn us for catastrophic sea-level rises in the year 2100 and beyond because of this process.

Sydney is strategically located between the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans. CO2-levels went up from 300 to 400 parts per million over the past 100 years. What's the impact on Sydney's sea-level?

Democracy? Make your choice!

In recent centuries the power of governments has become stronger and stronger. The governments got involved increasingly deeper into our lives and the citizens, the individuals, have ever less to say about ever more issues.

Climate policy is an excellent example of this interference. The government relies on completely unreliable data, unproven hypotheses, and ideas while the consequences of this interference affect everyone. At present, governments worldwide are about to make cheap and reliable energy sources -that form the basis of our economic prosperity- inaccessible. The results are far-reaching.

Censored and kicked by a Facebook group!

Yesterday I decided to post my Four Interglacials to a Facebook group called "Global Warming Denialism is a Big Oil agenda".

It was an educational experience.

About consensus, "97%", and settled science

There are four misconceptions about science that are commonly used by catastrophic man-made warming advocates. Normally, when you try to start a conversation on the subject, their first reply will be one of these four "arguments".