4 ms·

Well, photosynthesis has been deployed some million years ago and works rather well. Stop deforestation, manage forest wisely and start using wood again. 1 m3 w

by n1000 9y ago

Well, photosynthesis has been deployed some million years ago and works rather well. Stop deforestation, manage forest wisely and start using wood again. 1 m3 wood = 1 ton of CO2 sequestered.

Artlav 9y ago
Sadly, it was designed for much smaller capacity and does not scale well, so a new solution is required. As usual, it will get put off for lack of funding again and again until the old system finally breaks. Then there will be much action and much loss.
zigzigzag 9y ago
The UK is already deforested and almost all land is in use, either for cities/towns or agriculture. There is no space to put new forests there. So for the UK to meet its own targets it has to look elsewhere.
- scarab 9y ago
  Interestingly, only 1% of the UK is built on: "The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales. Put another way, that means almost 93% of the UK is not urban" And of that 7% that is designated urban, a large proportion is gardens, parks, allotments, sports pitches etc. Woodland (i.e. Forests) is 12.6% of the UK which is double the size of designated urban areas even if green spaces are excluded. The majority of the UK is enclosed farmland. So to significantly increase the forestation of the UK, you would need to repurpose farmland. From http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096
  - david-given 9y ago
    The UK did actually have a big programme for planting forests; the Forestry Commission: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/ https://www.forestry.gov.uk/ Unfortunately, they are (at least in Scotland, which is the bit I know about) mostly just tree farms, growing very fast-growing, densely planted pines (Norway Spruce? can't find a reference), frequently in unsuitable areas, and the results were ecologically... poor. Nothing lives in them and they're alien trees anyway. The phrase 'trash forest' was coined. These days there's a lot more awareness that this is bad, and they're growing more deciduous wood and relying less on monoculture, but it's still a problem. Not the best picture, but here's a street view shot of one: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.5275519,-5.186435,3a,75y,23.85h,89.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stD2rx_8gA8kv58rvq-vtWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.5275519,-5.186435,3a,75y,2... (Incidentally, if you look in the opposite direction; that island in the middle of the loch? That's native woodland. The slopes beyond are supposed to be covered with it. But it was all felled centuries ago, then the deer population rose, and now they're making it impossible for native forest to be properly established. You want to promote forest growth in Scotland? Cull the bloody deer down to about 10% of their current population. And then reintroduce wolves and lynx.)
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      We could probably do a lot of good by eliminating sheep farming on marginal land as well, I really can't see the justification for supporting it.
stouset 9y ago
Wood isn't an effective means of sequestration unless you also bury it. And it isn't going to fix things in terms of sheer volume either. We've cut down forests and burnt fossil fuels. Replenishing forests only reversed the effects of the former and doesn't account for the carbon released via the latter.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Is that because it leaches out over time, or because it eventually winds up burned?
- schiffern 9y ago
  >Wood isn't an effective means of sequestration unless you also bury it. This is patently false. Yes each individual tree is only a temporary store (with a half-life somewhere around 100 years), but that's ok because the forest as a whole is continually generating trees, and sequester CO2 in the form of soil. Trees also create conditions that protect that soil from erosion and re-emission (protection from wind, rain, and evaporation). The total anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution works out to only 30 tonnes of carbon per hectare, which is a few inches of topsoil or a few additional trees per hectare. It's easy to soak up that much carbon just in biomass on the surface. Even in farmland the addition of selected "farmer's trees" (carub, honey locust, acacia, leucaena) can be used. These are selected species of tree that actually increase yield when planted into a field at 20-30/acre, despite casting some shade on the crops. These trees typically have deep roots that harvest minerals and recycle nutrients that would otherwise leach down to the aquifer, and their root system can coexist with crops right up to the butt of the tree. The nutrients are dropped as mulch, and they also make nutritious pods for animal feed.
  - david-given 9y ago
    ...plus, if you're careful, you get to use the wood for things. Obviously you can't burn it, but sequestered carbon remains just as sequestered if you build buildings out of it than if you left it in the forest --- frequently better, because preserved structural wood doesn't rot as quickly as a dead tree in the forest. Of course, you still need a lot of trees. The internets say that a rough rule of thumb for the amount of carbon in a tree is about a tonne. Therefore, given current carbon emissions of about 10^10 tonnes a year you'd need to plant more trees than that --- every year. (And then wait multiple decades. This isn't a short term solution.) As you say, another reason to plant them is for local benefit. You don't mention that trees also regulate the local microclimate; they tend to make rain, for example. When Cyprus was deforested, it got a lot drier. I knew someone who was working to try and reforest a lot of it with the explicit goal of trying to fix some of the water supply issues; I don't know if they got anywhere. And, of course, they're just nice to be around. Recent research show that there are about 10^12 trees in the world. http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/02/436919052/tree-counter-is-astonished-by-how-many-trees-there-are http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/02/43691905...

by n1000 9y ago

Well, photosynthesis has been deployed some million years ago and works rather well. Stop deforestation, manage forest wisely and start using wood again. 1 m3 wood = 1 ton of CO2 sequestered.

Artlav 9y ago

Sadly, it was designed for much smaller capacity and does not scale well, so a new solution is required. As usual, it will get put off for lack of funding again and again until the old system finally breaks. Then there will be much action and much loss.

zigzigzag 9y ago

The UK is already deforested and almost all land is in use, either for cities/towns or agriculture. There is no space to put new forests there. So for the UK to meet its own targets it has to look elsewhere.

scarab 9y ago
Interestingly, only 1% of the UK is built on: "The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales. Put another way, that means almost 93% of the UK is not urban" And of that 7% that is designated urban, a large proportion is gardens, parks, allotments, sports pitches etc. Woodland (i.e. Forests) is 12.6% of the UK which is double the size of designated urban areas even if green spaces are excluded. The majority of the UK is enclosed farmland. So to significantly increase the forestation of the UK, you would need to repurpose farmland. From http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096
- david-given 9y ago
  The UK did actually have a big programme for planting forests; the Forestry Commission: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/ https://www.forestry.gov.uk/ Unfortunately, they are (at least in Scotland, which is the bit I know about) mostly just tree farms, growing very fast-growing, densely planted pines (Norway Spruce? can't find a reference), frequently in unsuitable areas, and the results were ecologically... poor. Nothing lives in them and they're alien trees anyway. The phrase 'trash forest' was coined. These days there's a lot more awareness that this is bad, and they're growing more deciduous wood and relying less on monoculture, but it's still a problem. Not the best picture, but here's a street view shot of one: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.5275519,-5.186435,3a,75y,23.85h,89.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stD2rx_8gA8kv58rvq-vtWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.5275519,-5.186435,3a,75y,2... (Incidentally, if you look in the opposite direction; that island in the middle of the loch? That's native woodland. The slopes beyond are supposed to be covered with it. But it was all felled centuries ago, then the deer population rose, and now they're making it impossible for native forest to be properly established. You want to promote forest growth in Scotland? Cull the bloody deer down to about 10% of their current population. And then reintroduce wolves and lynx.)
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    We could probably do a lot of good by eliminating sheep farming on marginal land as well, I really can't see the justification for supporting it.

stouset 9y ago

Wood isn't an effective means of sequestration unless you also bury it. And it isn't going to fix things in terms of sheer volume either. We've cut down forests and burnt fossil fuels. Replenishing forests only reversed the effects of the former and doesn't account for the carbon released via the latter.

Karunamon 9y ago
Is that because it leaches out over time, or because it eventually winds up burned?
schiffern 9y ago
>Wood isn't an effective means of sequestration unless you also bury it. This is patently false. Yes each individual tree is only a temporary store (with a half-life somewhere around 100 years), but that's ok because the forest as a whole is continually generating trees, and sequester CO2 in the form of soil. Trees also create conditions that protect that soil from erosion and re-emission (protection from wind, rain, and evaporation). The total anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution works out to only 30 tonnes of carbon per hectare, which is a few inches of topsoil or a few additional trees per hectare. It's easy to soak up that much carbon just in biomass on the surface. Even in farmland the addition of selected "farmer's trees" (carub, honey locust, acacia, leucaena) can be used. These are selected species of tree that actually increase yield when planted into a field at 20-30/acre, despite casting some shade on the crops. These trees typically have deep roots that harvest minerals and recycle nutrients that would otherwise leach down to the aquifer, and their root system can coexist with crops right up to the butt of the tree. The nutrients are dropped as mulch, and they also make nutritious pods for animal feed.
- david-given 9y ago
  ...plus, if you're careful, you get to use the wood for things. Obviously you can't burn it, but sequestered carbon remains just as sequestered if you build buildings out of it than if you left it in the forest --- frequently better, because preserved structural wood doesn't rot as quickly as a dead tree in the forest. Of course, you still need a lot of trees. The internets say that a rough rule of thumb for the amount of carbon in a tree is about a tonne. Therefore, given current carbon emissions of about 10^10 tonnes a year you'd need to plant more trees than that --- every year. (And then wait multiple decades. This isn't a short term solution.) As you say, another reason to plant them is for local benefit. You don't mention that trees also regulate the local microclimate; they tend to make rain, for example. When Cyprus was deforested, it got a lot drier. I knew someone who was working to try and reforest a lot of it with the explicit goal of trying to fix some of the water supply issues; I don't know if they got anywhere. And, of course, they're just nice to be around. Recent research show that there are about 10^12 trees in the world. http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/02/436919052/tree-counter-is-astonished-by-how-many-trees-there-are http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/02/43691905...