3 ms·

> 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 arti

by 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.

by jwr 7y ago

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.