4 ms·

I like that the headline on this one actually gives a number. 1 Trillion! Something like 139 trees per person. I read an article similar to this earlier today

I like that the headline on this one actually gives a number. 1 Trillion! Something like 139 trees per person. I read an article similar to this earlier today (not on HN like I posted before I edited this). https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-05/climate-change-tree-planting-carbon-dioxide/11267556 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-05/climate-chang...

krageon 7y ago
It's closer to 129, though that is still a big number.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Not so difficult. I'm sure most people could plant 10 trees a month, given the motivation. Trouble is, how are we going to get people motivated to do this?
  - krageon 7y ago
    I can easily come close to 50 times that in a month (a given being that not all the seeds I throw around become real trees, so let's say it's 5 times). Doing so on a piece of land that won't get it's trees cut in short order is however next to impossible.
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    Make it mandatory (and pay) for schools to ensure that each secondary school or higher kid plants 10 trees a year. The motivation multiplier on the rest of society from this policy will take care of the rest.
    - eitland 7y ago
      Used to be a thing in Norway until the 70ies or early 80ies. Now we Norwegians are busily blaming ourselves for planting Sitka spruce instead of native species, but I guess the right answer might not be to stop planting trees but to be a little more considerate in what we plant and where.
      - mrec 7y ago
        What's wrong with Sitka spruce?
        eitland 7y ago
        Replaces local species.
  - Jommi 7y ago
    No, the problem is those trees need to stay alive and grow and not be burned for the carbon capture actually work out.
    - willyt 7y ago
      They could be cut down and turned into cross laminated timber buildings. If the trees are left to grow old and die naturally, does the stored carbon get re-emitted as a bi-product of decomposition? EDIT: According to the discussion below, yes it does.
  - buboard 7y ago
    Planting does not guarantee that a tree can live

krageon 7y ago

It's closer to 129, though that is still a big number.

fit2rule 7y ago
Not so difficult. I'm sure most people could plant 10 trees a month, given the motivation. Trouble is, how are we going to get people motivated to do this?
- krageon 7y ago
  I can easily come close to 50 times that in a month (a given being that not all the seeds I throw around become real trees, so let's say it's 5 times). Doing so on a piece of land that won't get it's trees cut in short order is however next to impossible.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  Make it mandatory (and pay) for schools to ensure that each secondary school or higher kid plants 10 trees a year. The motivation multiplier on the rest of society from this policy will take care of the rest.
  - eitland 7y ago
    Used to be a thing in Norway until the 70ies or early 80ies. Now we Norwegians are busily blaming ourselves for planting Sitka spruce instead of native species, but I guess the right answer might not be to stop planting trees but to be a little more considerate in what we plant and where.
    - mrec 7y ago
      What's wrong with Sitka spruce?
      - eitland 7y ago
        Replaces local species.
- Jommi 7y ago
  No, the problem is those trees need to stay alive and grow and not be burned for the carbon capture actually work out.
  - willyt 7y ago
    They could be cut down and turned into cross laminated timber buildings. If the trees are left to grow old and die naturally, does the stored carbon get re-emitted as a bi-product of decomposition? EDIT: According to the discussion below, yes it does.
- buboard 7y ago
  Planting does not guarantee that a tree can live