5 ms·

Interesting – we need more of such studies. Check out Drawdown [0] for other interventions with quantified costs/benefits. Economists widely agree that carbon

by skosch 7y ago

Interesting – we need more of such studies. Check out Drawdown [0] for other interventions with quantified costs/benefits. Economists widely agree that carbon pricing is the most effective way to fix climate change [1], and fee-and-dividend implementations are the most viable politically (there's a bill before Congress now [2]). [0] https://www.drawdown.org/ https://www.drawdown.org/ [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/business/economic-science-nobel-prize.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/business/economic-science... [2] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbo...

jwr 7y ago
> Economists widely agree that carbon pricing is the most effective way to fix climate change That is true, and does not conflict with the findings of the article. I think the difference here is that we can start planting trees right now. Carbon taxation is something people still pretend doesn't have to be done. It's also worth noting, that given the accelerating pace of the climate crisis, the time to start planting those forests is NOW. Not in a year, not in two years, NOW.
- skosch 7y ago
  Absolutely true. And tree planting appears (to me) to be an underappreciated philanthropic cause area. This study could help change that.
- Retric 7y ago
  Most people are overestimating the value in planting trees. Trees readily plant themselves in areas they are well adapted to. Areas that don’t quickly turn into forests are generally poorly suited to growing trees. Further, not all trees are equivalent with marginal areas generally resulting in small and often very slowly growing trees.
  - skosch 7y ago
    > Trees readily plant themselves in areas they are well adapted to. I am very skeptical if that's true – see formerly forested areas like Iceland, Brazil, etc. It's not easy for a single sapling to grow into a tree, even if the conditions are right. That's why companies like Afforestt exist [0]. [0] http://www.afforestt.com/ http://www.afforestt.com/
    - Retric 7y ago
      Trees don't disperse their seeds an unlimited distance. But, if you look at a map of where they want to plant new trees you will find many trees already in those areas. Edit, back to your point. Forest fires and other natural events regularly kill off large chunks of trees. They need to be able to grow in those areas in order to survive.
  - pstuart 7y ago
    > Trees readily plant themselves in areas they are well adapted to. We're at a point where passively going with "let nature take its course" is not a prudent action. We need to nudge things where and when we can. There's multiple documented instances of forests being replanted, so this is not idle speculation.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    Yes, over hundreds of years. I have a few acres of land and there's several trees on ~.5 acres. There's some young trees in the ground spreading from the original half acre that got there naturally. They're a good 4-5 feet from the original tree. It'll take a while to get the rest forested if I wait, though squirrels and birds moving seeds could help. Part of it is that trees can make the area better for other trees; the conifers stop grass from growing under them, which is good since the grass can be as tall as I am and block out light.
  - krageon 7y ago
    > Areas that don’t quickly turn into forests are generally poorly suited to growing trees. For some value of "quick", you are correct. Fertile land will indeed eventually develop into some kind of forest absent factors that inhibit such development (such as grazing cattle). I do not agree with you about this process being quick, as it can easily take more than one human lifetime for this to happen.
    - Retric 7y ago
      By planting trees you can very much speed up this process, but it’s still going to take decades to get significant tree growth. Further, you can’t count 100% of those trees as net growth because the area would have gained a few trees in that same period. So, critically the impact of planting trees needs to be compared to an ever more forested area that would have occurred if similar measures where taken but zero trees planted. On top of that grasslands can store significant carbon in root systems which is then slowly released as the grasses are killed of by tree growth.
notatoad 7y ago
I believe carbon pricing has two aspects - one is to charge carbon emitters, the other aspect is to use that money to do something that reduces existing CO2 levels. Just charging emitters does not completely solve the problem, so research into the best ways to spend the funds generated by carbon pricing is critical.
- mariushn 7y ago
  I always thought that carbon/green certificates taxes go towards environment/renewable energy, but I'm probably too naive... How to minimize the Tragedy of the commons effect? Where countries don't want to impact their economic growth because other countries won't impose such taxes, therefore some production will move there.
  - notatoad 7y ago
    >How to minimize the Tragedy of the commons effect? Where countries don't want to impact their economic growth because other countries won't impose such taxes, therefore some production will move there. This was the point of the Paris Agreement.
    - lozenge 7y ago
      The Paris agreement did nothing about this. It is completely non binding. The actual emissions reduction plans (INDCs) were drafted by each country and not negotiated.
  - skosch 7y ago
    Good question. The answer lies in multilateral agreements (Paris etc.) and in so-called Border Carbon Adjustments. The latter have to be implemented carefully so as not to violate any WTO rules [0], but it's possible. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TPC_20180726_Morris-Making-Border-Carbon-Adjustments-Work.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TPC_201...
- graeme 7y ago
  It depends. You could, for example, make high carbon taxes while reducing income taxes or dividending the money back to people. This would let you have more of a carbon blocking effect while keeping government revenues steady. If you use the money for a specific purpose, then you either need low carbon taxes to avoid radically altering the government’s role in the economy, or you are making a large bet that the government will spend the money well. Having a large, long run carbon tax will do much to encourage the market to develop alternatives.
AvocadoPanic 7y ago
Really? Economists see economic solution...
pdonis 7y ago
> Economists widely agree that carbon pricing is the most effective way to fix climate change Those economists are basing that claim on two highly questionable premises: (1) That we know with high confidence that reducing CO2 levels will "fix" climate change. We don't know that. Climate models based on that assumption do not make accurate predictions. (2) That we know with high confidence the economic consequences of particular interventions such as carbon pricing. We don't know that either. Economists' predictive ability is even worse than that of the climate models.

by skosch 7y ago

jwr 7y ago

> Economists widely agree that carbon pricing is the most effective way to fix climate change That is true, and does not conflict with the findings of the article. I think the difference here is that we can start planting trees right now. Carbon taxation is something people still pretend doesn't have to be done. It's also worth noting, that given the accelerating pace of the climate crisis, the time to start planting those forests is NOW. Not in a year, not in two years, NOW.

skosch 7y ago
Absolutely true. And tree planting appears (to me) to be an underappreciated philanthropic cause area. This study could help change that.
Retric 7y ago
Most people are overestimating the value in planting trees. Trees readily plant themselves in areas they are well adapted to. Areas that don’t quickly turn into forests are generally poorly suited to growing trees. Further, not all trees are equivalent with marginal areas generally resulting in small and often very slowly growing trees.
- skosch 7y ago
  > Trees readily plant themselves in areas they are well adapted to. I am very skeptical if that's true – see formerly forested areas like Iceland, Brazil, etc. It's not easy for a single sapling to grow into a tree, even if the conditions are right. That's why companies like Afforestt exist [0]. [0] http://www.afforestt.com/ http://www.afforestt.com/
  - Retric 7y ago
    Trees don't disperse their seeds an unlimited distance. But, if you look at a map of where they want to plant new trees you will find many trees already in those areas. Edit, back to your point. Forest fires and other natural events regularly kill off large chunks of trees. They need to be able to grow in those areas in order to survive.
- pstuart 7y ago
  > Trees readily plant themselves in areas they are well adapted to. We're at a point where passively going with "let nature take its course" is not a prudent action. We need to nudge things where and when we can. There's multiple documented instances of forests being replanted, so this is not idle speculation.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  Yes, over hundreds of years. I have a few acres of land and there's several trees on ~.5 acres. There's some young trees in the ground spreading from the original half acre that got there naturally. They're a good 4-5 feet from the original tree. It'll take a while to get the rest forested if I wait, though squirrels and birds moving seeds could help. Part of it is that trees can make the area better for other trees; the conifers stop grass from growing under them, which is good since the grass can be as tall as I am and block out light.
- krageon 7y ago
  > Areas that don’t quickly turn into forests are generally poorly suited to growing trees. For some value of "quick", you are correct. Fertile land will indeed eventually develop into some kind of forest absent factors that inhibit such development (such as grazing cattle). I do not agree with you about this process being quick, as it can easily take more than one human lifetime for this to happen.
  - Retric 7y ago
    By planting trees you can very much speed up this process, but it’s still going to take decades to get significant tree growth. Further, you can’t count 100% of those trees as net growth because the area would have gained a few trees in that same period. So, critically the impact of planting trees needs to be compared to an ever more forested area that would have occurred if similar measures where taken but zero trees planted. On top of that grasslands can store significant carbon in root systems which is then slowly released as the grasses are killed of by tree growth.

notatoad 7y ago

I believe carbon pricing has two aspects - one is to charge carbon emitters, the other aspect is to use that money to do something that reduces existing CO2 levels. Just charging emitters does not completely solve the problem, so research into the best ways to spend the funds generated by carbon pricing is critical.

mariushn 7y ago
I always thought that carbon/green certificates taxes go towards environment/renewable energy, but I'm probably too naive... How to minimize the Tragedy of the commons effect? Where countries don't want to impact their economic growth because other countries won't impose such taxes, therefore some production will move there.
- notatoad 7y ago
  >How to minimize the Tragedy of the commons effect? Where countries don't want to impact their economic growth because other countries won't impose such taxes, therefore some production will move there. This was the point of the Paris Agreement.
  - lozenge 7y ago
    The Paris agreement did nothing about this. It is completely non binding. The actual emissions reduction plans (INDCs) were drafted by each country and not negotiated.
- skosch 7y ago
  Good question. The answer lies in multilateral agreements (Paris etc.) and in so-called Border Carbon Adjustments. The latter have to be implemented carefully so as not to violate any WTO rules [0], but it's possible. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TPC_20180726_Morris-Making-Border-Carbon-Adjustments-Work.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TPC_201...
graeme 7y ago
It depends. You could, for example, make high carbon taxes while reducing income taxes or dividending the money back to people. This would let you have more of a carbon blocking effect while keeping government revenues steady. If you use the money for a specific purpose, then you either need low carbon taxes to avoid radically altering the government’s role in the economy, or you are making a large bet that the government will spend the money well. Having a large, long run carbon tax will do much to encourage the market to develop alternatives.

AvocadoPanic 7y ago

Really? Economists see economic solution...

pdonis 7y ago

> Economists widely agree that carbon pricing is the most effective way to fix climate change Those economists are basing that claim on two highly questionable premises: (1) That we know with high confidence that reducing CO2 levels will "fix" climate change. We don't know that. Climate models based on that assumption do not make accurate predictions. (2) That we know with high confidence the economic consequences of particular interventions such as carbon pricing. We don't know that either. Economists' predictive ability is even worse than that of the climate models.