Why the NFL is getting rid of fake turf grass in favor of grass, research shows

In a paper published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Tuesday, researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, and Duke University detailed their work to show that grass is a much more efficient source of carbon dioxide than synthetic turf.

The research, which was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, also suggests that turf could help reduce the use of petroleum in the United States.

The paper, “The Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Grass,” was co-authored by two co-authors: one is a graduate student at Berkeley; the other is a postdoctoral fellow at Duke University.

The paper is a continuation of a separate effort that began in 2014.

The Berkeley-Duke study was the first to look at the carbon dioxide emissions of grass in California.

The researchers wanted to find out if the carbon emissions of turf could be reduced, because turf absorbs a large amount of carbon during the growing season and it can be an expensive and difficult plant to replant.

The study used a system called a carbon cycle to simulate turf growing.

A carbon cycle involves a process that captures carbon dioxide during growth.

This process is called photosynthesis, and it uses sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into organic molecules called carbonic acid.

When plants and trees grow, they release carbon dioxide.

When they die, they are decomposed by the process.

In the case of turf, carbon dioxide is released as CO2 when the grass is harvested for fertilizer.

Researchers then measured how much carbon dioxide was emitted from grass in the greenhouse.

They found that turf emits only about 0.1 percent of the carbon that grass absorbs, which is very close to what is used for photosynthesis.

The amount of CO2 released from turf is about 10 times smaller than the amount released from grass.

To find out whether the carbon from turf could actually be reduced by removing it from the ground, the researchers took the CO2 emitted from turf and measured the amount of it in the soil.

They then compared that amount to the amount that was emitted by grass.

The researchers found that the amount in the soils of turf and grass is almost the same, at only about 5 percent of each other.

The authors also compared the carbon emitted by the two plants.

They looked at the amount stored in the plants’ leaves and realized that it was about 3.5 times less than the soil amount.

The authors also found that a carbon sequestration system in turf and a carbon capture system in grass would both increase the amount captured.

The carbon released from the system would also be stored in a different way, with less of the organic carbon, the authors said.

This study suggests that the carbon released by turf could also be used to reduce carbon emissions from other plants.

The study, “A carbon cycle of grasses and turf,” is an example of that, the paper said.

The findings also support the idea that grasses may be a more efficient way to store carbon than grasses.

In other words, the carbon stored in grasses can be recycled, because the plant will store it in its leaves instead of in soil, the study said.