7 ms·
Not to discourage, but even reforesting entire land that could possibly be covered in forest will not arrest climate change noticeably. The reason is because f
by lmilcin 7y ago
Not to discourage, but even reforesting entire land that could possibly be covered in forest will not arrest climate change noticeably.
The reason is because forest do not change CO2 levels noticeably, in the long run. The reason is because there is roughly constant amount of carbon in Earths biomass. Planting treas only increases the amonut of biomass by a little bit but has no lasting effect of scrubbing CO2 from atmosphere.
The real solution to climate change is undoing decades of constant addition of CO2 to atmosphere. This requires not only scrubbing CO2 from atmosphere but also sequestering the carbon somehow which means preventing it getting back to carbon cycle.
If you really wanted to make planting trees have an effect you would not only need to plant trees, you would need to regularly cut them (before they burn) and store them somewhere, maybe at the bottom of ocean, from where it will not be released (decomposed, burned, etc.)
Of course, planting trees have other beneficial effects like helping to keep rainwater. It is just important to make sure right kinds of trees (and large variety of them!) are planted to not repeat mistakes that were made in other places.
- luesterklemme 7y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting... ETH Zürich seems to disagree with that statement.
- lmilcin 7y agoThe Guardian seems to disagree with you. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/negative-emissions-tech-climate-emergency-carbon-dioxide-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/negati...
- lmilcin 7y agoWell, humanity uses around 15 billion tonnes of coal and oil and gas every year. At that speed, in just 30 years, we add as much carbon to the atmosphere as entire biomass of Earth.
- abraae 7y agoTimber buildings, furniture are possible targets for medium term sequestration of co2 via timber. More offbeat approaches might include modern giant pyramids built of timber, perhaps in the Australian outback. As long as they could be secured from fire and decay.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoMaybe it's easier to let them rot in place like it worked in the rainforests for millions of years?
- abraae 7y agoRotting releases their co2. All good when things are in balance - but they're not. To sequester the c02, you need to prevent rot.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoHm, as far as I remember that was the way CO2 was turned into fossil fuel, depositing layers over layers of vegetation...
- tcbawo 7y agoI believe that accumulation happened before microorganisms had evolved to digest cellulose (?). If we can ever produce a surplus of electricity, we would ideally sequester carbon in a place other than the bottom of the ocean, creating a giant Earth-battery. Although it would be ironic if "carbon sequestration" meant heaping plastic in landfills.
- quickthrower2 7y agoProbably a really bad idea but what about chemical treatment to prevent rot.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
- bayesian_horse 7y agoI think this initiative was aimed at soil erosion and moisture retention...
- lmilcin 7y agoPlanting trees definitely does not hurt and as you say, prevents soil erosion and helps keep ground water which is going to be more and more important as we go. Just don't think this will magically revert global warming, this would be dangerous attitude.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago>>Just don't think this will magically revert global warming, this would be dangerous attitude. Maybe but it's relatively cheap, and it can't hurt so why not?
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoWaste of time, money, and resources. Appearance of fixing a problem without doing so reduces motivation to actually fix it. Global support might wane because "they fixed it". Seems like there are many reasons not to do a fix unless you know it works to some reasonable extent.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoAgain, the issue they want to address is not climate change but retention of soil and improving their regional climate and water cycle.
- neltnerb 7y agoAnd it doesn't hurt that it probably slightly improves global warming and planting trees isn't very costly. Especially in places where labor is inexpensive. Why would they not do this is often a question I've been left with after talking to climate change nihilists. No, it won't fix global warming. But it doesn't cost very much, helps their population and economy, and makes a dent in global warming. At least they're not turning off perfectly functional nuclear power plants like in so-sophisticated Germany. They're reforesting. Do what you can and try not to make things worse.
- ginko 7y agoCarbon sequestration via wood burial[1] [1] https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1 https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0...
- ryanmercer 7y agoIt's better to just use it for sustainable construction, where you are locking it up for decades in a structure.
- ginko 7y agoI guess another option would be to shred the wood and dump it in wasteland to compost it. Considering we have a huge problem with soil erosion, this might be a viable way to regain some of it. There was this experiment with just dumping 12000 tonnes of orange peel a while ago that turned out to be a huge success: https://www.sciencealert.com/how-12-000-tonnes-of-dumped-orange-peel-produced-something-nobody-imagined https://www.sciencealert.com/how-12-000-tonnes-of-dumped-ora... Maybe something like this can also work with wood, although it might take a bit longer to compost.
- ryanmercer 7y agoHmmm, this makes me wonder how much of the carbon petrified wood retains and if there isn't some method where the process might be accelerated (without a lot of energy input, a quick google shows you can do it rapidly using a heated chamber but that's going to be counterproductive and require an absurd amount of energy). Although, maybe you could use concentrated solar or even geothermal for the heating part. Hell, you could probably make it profitable selling the petrified wood for use in construction (mantles, counter tops, tile). If it retains a decent amount of the carbon.
- zkomp 7y agoLetting trees grow and sucking up co2, and then making them into charcoal/biochar, putting that into the soil is one simple way to do it. Even if not done, still think a living forest has to be much better than a plain or desert.
- Maximus9000 7y ago> "The reason is because forest do not change CO2 levels noticeably, in the long run" What does "in the long run" mean? Will it suck up carbon for the first 20 years while the tree is growing? 20 years would of borrowed time would be quite useful.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- soperj 7y agoYou've basically saying mass deforestation isn't a big deal.
- lmilcin 7y agoPlease, try to read with comprehension. Deforestation is definitely a big deal. We need to preserve nature's diversity and forests are extremely important part of that. What I meant is to warn people against thinking that if we start planting trees en masse then we have somehow on the right track to solve the problem. We are not.
- orliesaurus 7y agoThis seems like a really well thought out reply: any books on climate change and the way the world is changing that you recommend on this subject ?
- chimprich 7y agoNot the OP, but for a scientific approach to dealing with climate change, this book is excellent (also available to read online): https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/ It's a little out of date on things like the advances made in renewables, but still very good. Also very readable.