5 ms·

Pakistan completed a billion tree plantation project in 2017 [1]. This is currently being followed up with a 5 year 10 billion tree plantation project, at an an

Pakistan completed a billion tree plantation project in 2017 [1]. This is currently being followed up with a 5 year 10 billion tree plantation project, at an annual cost of 7.5 billion PKR (~47 million USD) [2]. Planting 989bn trees for the other 200 countries should not be too difficult. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_Tree_Tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_Tree_Tsunami [2] http://www.radio.gov.pk/04-07-2019/pms-vision-of-clean-green-pakistan-getting-intl-acclaim-amin http://www.radio.gov.pk/04-07-2019/pms-vision-of-clean-green...

agumonkey 7y ago
I remember hearing about it.. but it should be news head title. Also, by making it a socially distributed action. To make people relearn, take part, take ownership, spend more time out.. it could probably cost less.
- peterburkimsher 7y ago
  It used to be a national holiday in Korea, and many people still celebrate that day by planting trees every year. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day#Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day#Korea
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    I often think that to make something free, make it part of the culture. People gathering around doing it because it has large social short and long term value.
maccard 7y ago
The fact that it costs 50 million a year is incredible. That's less than 0.1% of what the UK government spends on interest on it's debts per year.
- tremon 7y ago
  That's not where the cost is. It's in the opportunity cost for that area. Entire forests have been destroyed mostly not for their wood, but to re-use the land for a different, money-generating, purpose.
  - donmatito 7y ago
    The study specifically mentions that they considered land not used, including for growing crops (they did mention using land used for grazing, but since cattle has apparently a significant greenhouse impact, I guess it's fair game)
  - metricbelt 7y ago
    Maybe we should also consider the opportunity cost of not having a livable planet?
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      People are free to buy up land and dedicate it to growing trees. If individuals aren't willing to pay the costs of doing so, then why would organizations representing the interests of those same individuals behave differently? Yes, sometimes small groups can get focused action on these issues, but it doesn't happen consistently enough to be relied upon as the solution. When you can get citizens to consistently try to solve the problem on the level they can control, then you aren't going to be able to consistently get governments to do it either. The options left are to use educational methods to convince the citizens otherwise or go with options that do not require action level buy in from the majority.
      - JeremyBanks 7y ago
        wow
      - pasquinelli 7y ago
        Before there were fire departments there private fire services. You would pay a fee and if your house caught fire your service would put it out. But once your house is on fire to a point beyond your control, the fire service isn't likly to save the building. They'll just be putting out the fire. That's good for your neighbors-- embers traveling on the wind could ignite their rooves. But since it doesn't actually do much for a person themselves, not enough people carried fire service to prevent fires from spreading unnecessarily. So now everyone anywhere with significant population density acts collectively to fund a fire department to keep fires from spreading. Sometimes the things a person can individually do don't work and they need to act in concert to make a difference. Fire control, transportation, defense... health care? Mitigating environmental catastrophe?
onion2k 7y ago
Does that $47m cost include the price of the land? If the government doesn't have that much viable tree-planting space available then they either have to seize it which would make some people very unhappy, or compulsorily purchase it which would push the cost up a lot. That isn't a reason not to do it, but in order to talk about it you need to be clear about what you're actually talking about.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  Not at all. I don't think a single m^2 of land has been or will be seized or bought for any of this. Actually, I should have been more clear - this is just the money coming out of the government budget. Some unspecified amount of money is coming from private-public partnerships and from donations. The trees are being planted on deforested public land, or just private land where the owners are happy to have forests/trees up, or in public urban spaces. Pakistan has already been hit very hard by climate change - for example by multiple catastrophic floods in the past two decades. There is a lot of public support for this venture.
- pharke 7y ago
  Why only those two options for getting trees onto private land? Why not an incentive system for landowners to plant and maintain trees? Let the government plant trees on your lawn and get a reduction in your land tax.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    That would still be a significant cost (in lost tax receipts).
    - wolco 7y ago
      Tax credit on new greenhouse tax. Revenue neutral if done right.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    One option is to subsidize the trees as a future investment for the one planting. While this won't do much to get people to plan trees where cities are at, in more rural areas you can convince someone to plan trees that will be able to be harvested in 50+ years. The only catch is that the people who own land are likely old enough they won't see the returns themselves, but if you present this as a method for investing in your children's future it could get buy in. A contract could also include an early sell penalty to dissuade people form cutting too early. Something like "If you sell early, the government is owed 50% of the total sell value. This percentage reduces by 1 per year until it reaches 0% at 50 years. This is in addition to any taxes owed on the sell." Also, just advertisement and information campaign aimed at getting people to plant trees in rural areas as an investment in their children's future would encourage more planting as well.
peterburkimsher 7y ago
China's planting a Great Green Wall [1], with another 66 billion trees. However it's struggling with dropping groundwater and species monoculture [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Pro... [2] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/china-great-green-wall-gobi-tengger-desertification/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/china-great-gree...
dalore 7y ago
That maths don't add up. If 200 countries need to do 989bn, then they need to do 4.945, let's say 5. If we consider countries with more population are going to plant more (so trees per capita perhaps). We could go with landmass but it takes money/people to do this, so let's go with capita. Pakistan being a highly populated country and so needs to plan more than the 5bn average (they did 10). But there is a very long tail of small countries in that list of 200 so many more small countries. Most will go below the average needed and so won't stack up.
- wolco 7y ago
  Can we finally get greenhouse credits for tree population?
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    It has to be tree population growth though - just having a lot of trees doesn't help, we need to plant them.
  - jgamman 7y ago
    uummm 'we' already do. NZ for one has a carbon credit for forestry.
paulcole 7y ago
> Planting 989bn trees for the other 200 countries should not be too difficult. Can I add this to the HN Weekend Projects list next to Dropbox, Facebook, and Twitter?
armenarmen 7y ago
Are there stats on what percentage of these trees are still alive?
chewz 7y ago
Poland is paying up to 2000 euro per ha (for up to 12 years) for converting agriculture land into forrest. There is also a lot of additional subsidies for forrests on private land which can add up to few thousand euro. You can actually make small but stable profit from buying land and converting into forest. > Priority will be given to those who intend to plant a forest in the so-called ecological corridors, in areas threatened by water erosion, in areas adjacent to inland waters and forests, in areas with a slope of more than 12 degrees. Also, those who have land for afforestation in voivodships with a forest cover of less than 30% will get points. Depending on the species composition of the crop and the previously mentioned criteria, the amount of support can range from PLN 4,984 to PLN 7,624 per hectare. In addition, payment is possible for fencing of crops. Link in Polish: http://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/jak-zdobyc-dofinansowanie-za-zalesianie http://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/jak-zdobyc-...
- chewz 7y ago
  Assigned budget for 2014-2020 is 300 milion euro. And I believe other EU countries run similar schemes. Also planting a forrest - as an ecological system - is better to just planting a tree, I think. Forrest area in Poland is growing since WWII from 20,8% in 1946 to 29,5% in 2016. The target for 2020 is 30% area of the country under forrest and for 2050 - 33%. 80% of forrests in Poland is under management of Lasy Panstwowe - state-owned company with political reach. https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasy_w_Polsce https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasy_w_Polsce https://lasy.gov.pl https://lasy.gov.pl

agumonkey 7y ago

I remember hearing about it.. but it should be news head title. Also, by making it a socially distributed action. To make people relearn, take part, take ownership, spend more time out.. it could probably cost less.

peterburkimsher 7y ago
It used to be a national holiday in Korea, and many people still celebrate that day by planting trees every year. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day#Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day#Korea
- agumonkey 7y ago
  I often think that to make something free, make it part of the culture. People gathering around doing it because it has large social short and long term value.

maccard 7y ago

The fact that it costs 50 million a year is incredible. That's less than 0.1% of what the UK government spends on interest on it's debts per year.

tremon 7y ago
That's not where the cost is. It's in the opportunity cost for that area. Entire forests have been destroyed mostly not for their wood, but to re-use the land for a different, money-generating, purpose.
- donmatito 7y ago
  The study specifically mentions that they considered land not used, including for growing crops (they did mention using land used for grazing, but since cattle has apparently a significant greenhouse impact, I guess it's fair game)
- metricbelt 7y ago
  Maybe we should also consider the opportunity cost of not having a livable planet?
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    People are free to buy up land and dedicate it to growing trees. If individuals aren't willing to pay the costs of doing so, then why would organizations representing the interests of those same individuals behave differently? Yes, sometimes small groups can get focused action on these issues, but it doesn't happen consistently enough to be relied upon as the solution. When you can get citizens to consistently try to solve the problem on the level they can control, then you aren't going to be able to consistently get governments to do it either. The options left are to use educational methods to convince the citizens otherwise or go with options that do not require action level buy in from the majority.
    - JeremyBanks 7y ago
      wow
    - pasquinelli 7y ago
      Before there were fire departments there private fire services. You would pay a fee and if your house caught fire your service would put it out. But once your house is on fire to a point beyond your control, the fire service isn't likly to save the building. They'll just be putting out the fire. That's good for your neighbors-- embers traveling on the wind could ignite their rooves. But since it doesn't actually do much for a person themselves, not enough people carried fire service to prevent fires from spreading unnecessarily. So now everyone anywhere with significant population density acts collectively to fund a fire department to keep fires from spreading. Sometimes the things a person can individually do don't work and they need to act in concert to make a difference. Fire control, transportation, defense... health care? Mitigating environmental catastrophe?

onion2k 7y ago

Does that $47m cost include the price of the land? If the government doesn't have that much viable tree-planting space available then they either have to seize it which would make some people very unhappy, or compulsorily purchase it which would push the cost up a lot. That isn't a reason not to do it, but in order to talk about it you need to be clear about what you're actually talking about.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Not at all. I don't think a single m^2 of land has been or will be seized or bought for any of this. Actually, I should have been more clear - this is just the money coming out of the government budget. Some unspecified amount of money is coming from private-public partnerships and from donations. The trees are being planted on deforested public land, or just private land where the owners are happy to have forests/trees up, or in public urban spaces. Pakistan has already been hit very hard by climate change - for example by multiple catastrophic floods in the past two decades. There is a lot of public support for this venture.
pharke 7y ago
Why only those two options for getting trees onto private land? Why not an incentive system for landowners to plant and maintain trees? Let the government plant trees on your lawn and get a reduction in your land tax.
- onion2k 7y ago
  That would still be a significant cost (in lost tax receipts).
  - wolco 7y ago
    Tax credit on new greenhouse tax. Revenue neutral if done right.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  One option is to subsidize the trees as a future investment for the one planting. While this won't do much to get people to plan trees where cities are at, in more rural areas you can convince someone to plan trees that will be able to be harvested in 50+ years. The only catch is that the people who own land are likely old enough they won't see the returns themselves, but if you present this as a method for investing in your children's future it could get buy in. A contract could also include an early sell penalty to dissuade people form cutting too early. Something like "If you sell early, the government is owed 50% of the total sell value. This percentage reduces by 1 per year until it reaches 0% at 50 years. This is in addition to any taxes owed on the sell." Also, just advertisement and information campaign aimed at getting people to plant trees in rural areas as an investment in their children's future would encourage more planting as well.

peterburkimsher 7y ago

China's planting a Great Green Wall [1], with another 66 billion trees. However it's struggling with dropping groundwater and species monoculture [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Pro... [2] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/china-great-green-wall-gobi-tengger-desertification/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/china-great-gree...

dalore 7y ago

That maths don't add up. If 200 countries need to do 989bn, then they need to do 4.945, let's say 5. If we consider countries with more population are going to plant more (so trees per capita perhaps). We could go with landmass but it takes money/people to do this, so let's go with capita. Pakistan being a highly populated country and so needs to plan more than the 5bn average (they did 10). But there is a very long tail of small countries in that list of 200 so many more small countries. Most will go below the average needed and so won't stack up.

wolco 7y ago
Can we finally get greenhouse credits for tree population?
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  It has to be tree population growth though - just having a lot of trees doesn't help, we need to plant them.
- jgamman 7y ago
  uummm 'we' already do. NZ for one has a carbon credit for forestry.

paulcole 7y ago

> Planting 989bn trees for the other 200 countries should not be too difficult. Can I add this to the HN Weekend Projects list next to Dropbox, Facebook, and Twitter?

armenarmen 7y ago

Are there stats on what percentage of these trees are still alive?

chewz 7y ago

Poland is paying up to 2000 euro per ha (for up to 12 years) for converting agriculture land into forrest. There is also a lot of additional subsidies for forrests on private land which can add up to few thousand euro. You can actually make small but stable profit from buying land and converting into forest. > Priority will be given to those who intend to plant a forest in the so-called ecological corridors, in areas threatened by water erosion, in areas adjacent to inland waters and forests, in areas with a slope of more than 12 degrees. Also, those who have land for afforestation in voivodships with a forest cover of less than 30% will get points. Depending on the species composition of the crop and the previously mentioned criteria, the amount of support can range from PLN 4,984 to PLN 7,624 per hectare. In addition, payment is possible for fencing of crops. Link in Polish: http://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/jak-zdobyc-dofinansowanie-za-zalesianie http://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/jak-zdobyc-...

chewz 7y ago
Assigned budget for 2014-2020 is 300 milion euro. And I believe other EU countries run similar schemes. Also planting a forrest - as an ecological system - is better to just planting a tree, I think. Forrest area in Poland is growing since WWII from 20,8% in 1946 to 29,5% in 2016. The target for 2020 is 30% area of the country under forrest and for 2050 - 33%. 80% of forrests in Poland is under management of Lasy Panstwowe - state-owned company with political reach. https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasy_w_Polsce https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasy_w_Polsce https://lasy.gov.pl https://lasy.gov.pl