But.... based on what math? Where would you generate oxygen besides a tree? 50% of earths O2 (roughly) comes from Plankton or algae. Most commercial O2 isn’t “produced” as much as it is extracted from air- so you can’t really base the value of oxygen on that because it’s the process and storage that is the cost- usually using cryogenics- and odds are that O2 that’s bottled was produced by a tree. So I mean- that is questionable. So are the other figures as well.
The costs in erosion prevention for instance? Compared to what? There are other plants besides trees that help with that, and again- where are these numbers coming from? Labor costs vary by market- the dollar values assigned to a tree for any given task would depend in part on labor and other costs in the area- just like it doesn’t cost the same to get a driveway paved in Mississippi as Tokyo or to get a root canal in Mexico as it does in Wisconsin.
Ultimately- trees are important. But stating whatever you want as fact and then putting a smart sounding name and or title in front of it is kinda dangerous. The guy who started the whole antivax thing is a “Dr.” so much for that I guess. If information is the currency of the 20th century then counterfeiting is the crime of the 21st century. How about some context? IF we could say how much value a tree is worth in these terms- ok... but comparatively to other plants etc- how does that stand in context?
Comments