6 ms·

No easy way to plot this - planting trees to sequester CO2 may or may not have a net positive impact at scale for a variety of reasons: 1) The timescale is ver

No easy way to plot this - planting trees to sequester CO2 may or may not have a net positive impact at scale for a variety of reasons: 1) The timescale is very long - a single tree to drive carbon neutrality is MOST optimistically pegged at 40 - 100 years depending on species. With expanding populations planning or guaranteeing execution on that time scale is limited. AKA it's very unlikely that most efforts, unless planted in an evergreen protected land will actually drive a net positive impact. 2) Forest soil and topsoil (from dropped branches, leaves, etc) can sequester up to 2x as much carbon as the actual trees themselves and is typically counted in the "net negative" C02 impact. But warming temperatures creates a negative feedback loop increases the rate of C02 release from soil. 3) Governments, in their effort to drive commercial tree planting, are accidentally driving the wrong incentives - farmed forests are <50% as effective at C02 sequester as natural forests and the act of burning wood pellets for fuel and or even using for building materials dramatically reduces and in fact calls into question ANY C02 benefits. Effectively the only sure fire way towards atmospheric CO2 reduction is cutting consumption (1) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burni... (2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trees-carbon-emissions-bob-mcdonald-1.4132679 https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trees-carbon-emissions-bo...

bamboozled 7y ago
Ok, so what ? I would say in 40 years we’re going to be in a much much worse situation so is your argument don’t bother ? Else we should do both, plant a trillion trees and replace fossil fuels and civilisation might be ok? Sorry but it just seems like you’re trying to make this a negative idea, when it’s a clearly positive thing outside of just sequestering carbon, there are other areas of the eco system improved by having more trees.
quixoticelixer- 7y ago
Farmed forest can be very effective in the short term for CO2 sequestration how ever, although the net CO2 sequestration over 200 years or so may be lower the sequestration in the short term can be very high. This gives you time to reduce the amount of emissions that are being made in the first place. Planting trees is not a long term solution in and off itself but it is an important tool in reducing emissions
microcolonel 7y ago
> But warming temperatures creates a negative feedback loop increases the rate of C02 release from soil. Elevated shade decreases local soil temperature.
tempguy9999 7y ago
This got voted down in a hurry. Every point seems valid and robust, so why?
- aresant 7y ago
  Maybe sounds too much like spouting from the climate change denier camp? Which I am the opposite of. There are a lot of flower & daisy soft solutions to C02. Drive to the suburban forest in your SUV, plant 100 trees that will inevitably be cut down long before they have a carbon negative impact, come home and run your AC. You're still running 1000/1 in negative C02 balance. Vs finds ways to dramatically cut use, double down on investigative hard solutions like nuclear and major infrastructure projects like mass transport, car banning, new taxation on major freight (sea and road) to force efficiency adoption etc. Lots of hard solutions are readily available to solving the problem, but by definition they're hard.
  - tunesmith 7y ago
    We've gotta get past the argument pattern of "don't reduce consumption; sequester!" and "don't sequester; reduce consumption!" A lot of both are needed. I agree with the point that planting 100 trees should not leave anyone feeling they've done their part. Repeating the math until we're blue in the face is what helps there I guess.
    - aresant 7y ago
      Fair point. But convincing the entire population of the world to set their thermostat 1 degree higher during the summer months would have a 1000x multiple impact on a 40x shorter time scale than if every one of those people planted a tree. The spirit of my comment is that in general people LOVE the path of least resistance. Ask the average person about combatting climate change and their response is "plant more trees". Because that's easy, shit you can pay the gardener to do it or donate $10 to a plant the tree collective and feel instant gratification with no sacrifice. Vs the highest possible impact solution which is cutting personal consumption - even a little bit!
BeefySwain 7y ago
How is using wood as a building material bad? I would think that putting carbon into our walls and patios would be as good a place as any to keep it out of the atmosphere?
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  I agree completely. I live in a century home. The spruce lumber in my walls is safe and dry and has been there decades longer than it would have been if those trees had been left to die and rot on their own.
- aresant 7y ago
  The articles I linked expand on this and there are many resources to research this. Short of cutting the tree down yourself, hauling it yourself, and then processing & building it: The C02 cost of harvesting, hauling, and processing trees into wood is very costly.
  - quixoticelixer- 7y ago
    But is that any different for any other material like steel or concrete?
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    If we can get all those steps onto electric power instead of internal combustion, then (assuming the power's coming from renewables, hydroelectric, or nuclear) that should eliminate the issue, right?
  - Xixi 7y ago
    Keep in mind that the current alternative to building with wood is to use concrete, which has a tremendous CO2 cost [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844
    - dredds 7y ago
      We should also look to compare hempcrete or similar lightweight materials with superior insulation qualities; "an un-rendered 30 cm thick hemp concrete wall enables a storage of 36.08 kg of CO2 per m2 [1]." [1] https://urbannext.net/hemp-concrete/ https://urbannext.net/hemp-concrete/
philipkglass 7y ago
Electricity from solar photovoltaic generation has life cycle emissions 90-95% lower than fossil-derived electricity, per median figures in the IPCC's 2014 tabulation of global warming potential of selected electricity sources. Geothermal, concentrated solar power, nuclear power, and wind power have even lower life cycle emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis... Displacing fossil-derived electricity with enough low-carbon electricity to supply an air conditioner is more effective than raising the AC temperature one degree or planting a tree. The key issue is to reduce emissions. Sometimes that necessitates reduced consumption of energy services [1]. But reducing consumption is not sufficient and often not necessary to deeply cut emissions. If 3 tons of CO2 per capita per year is a sustainable emissions rate, then the US emits at about 550% of the sustainable rate. Even Cuba emits at 107% of the sustainable rate. No polity is going to voluntarily reduce their material standard of living below that of Cuba. And even a super-emitter like the US could reach the sustainable rate with a combination of more efficient energy use and non-fossil (renewable and nuclear) primary energy production substituting for fossils. So I think that "stop burning fossils for air conditioning" is a prescription closer to solving the root problem than "endure a little more discomfort in the air conditioning season." [1] For example, there is no foreseeable technology that will enable trans-Atlantic passenger flights without burning chemical fuels. Long distance flights could burn synthetic fuels made using non-fossil electricity, but that would raise fuel prices. Whether by fiat or by pricing, long distance air travel will necessarily become less common if/when aviation faces pressure to reduce CO2 emissions.
- Retric 7y ago
  Those emission numbers are based on other carbon sources. Move to electric trucks etc and solar panels represent much lower emissions on their own.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Lithium-air is one technology that would easily enable transatlantic flights. Even lithium-sulfur/metal/etc (which are much nearer term and can be had in small batches now if you call around) you could get you transatlantic (Canada to Ireland) with a very efficient airframe and even with lithium-ion with a very efficient airframe if you hop over Canada, Greenland, and Iceland.

bamboozled 7y ago

Ok, so what ? I would say in 40 years we’re going to be in a much much worse situation so is your argument don’t bother ? Else we should do both, plant a trillion trees and replace fossil fuels and civilisation might be ok? Sorry but it just seems like you’re trying to make this a negative idea, when it’s a clearly positive thing outside of just sequestering carbon, there are other areas of the eco system improved by having more trees.

quixoticelixer- 7y ago

Farmed forest can be very effective in the short term for CO2 sequestration how ever, although the net CO2 sequestration over 200 years or so may be lower the sequestration in the short term can be very high. This gives you time to reduce the amount of emissions that are being made in the first place. Planting trees is not a long term solution in and off itself but it is an important tool in reducing emissions

microcolonel 7y ago

> But warming temperatures creates a negative feedback loop increases the rate of C02 release from soil. Elevated shade decreases local soil temperature.

tempguy9999 7y ago

This got voted down in a hurry. Every point seems valid and robust, so why?

aresant 7y ago
Maybe sounds too much like spouting from the climate change denier camp? Which I am the opposite of. There are a lot of flower & daisy soft solutions to C02. Drive to the suburban forest in your SUV, plant 100 trees that will inevitably be cut down long before they have a carbon negative impact, come home and run your AC. You're still running 1000/1 in negative C02 balance. Vs finds ways to dramatically cut use, double down on investigative hard solutions like nuclear and major infrastructure projects like mass transport, car banning, new taxation on major freight (sea and road) to force efficiency adoption etc. Lots of hard solutions are readily available to solving the problem, but by definition they're hard.
- tunesmith 7y ago
  We've gotta get past the argument pattern of "don't reduce consumption; sequester!" and "don't sequester; reduce consumption!" A lot of both are needed. I agree with the point that planting 100 trees should not leave anyone feeling they've done their part. Repeating the math until we're blue in the face is what helps there I guess.
  - aresant 7y ago
    Fair point. But convincing the entire population of the world to set their thermostat 1 degree higher during the summer months would have a 1000x multiple impact on a 40x shorter time scale than if every one of those people planted a tree. The spirit of my comment is that in general people LOVE the path of least resistance. Ask the average person about combatting climate change and their response is "plant more trees". Because that's easy, shit you can pay the gardener to do it or donate $10 to a plant the tree collective and feel instant gratification with no sacrifice. Vs the highest possible impact solution which is cutting personal consumption - even a little bit!

BeefySwain 7y ago

How is using wood as a building material bad? I would think that putting carbon into our walls and patios would be as good a place as any to keep it out of the atmosphere?

mikepurvis 7y ago
I agree completely. I live in a century home. The spruce lumber in my walls is safe and dry and has been there decades longer than it would have been if those trees had been left to die and rot on their own.
aresant 7y ago
The articles I linked expand on this and there are many resources to research this. Short of cutting the tree down yourself, hauling it yourself, and then processing & building it: The C02 cost of harvesting, hauling, and processing trees into wood is very costly.
- quixoticelixer- 7y ago
  But is that any different for any other material like steel or concrete?
- yellowapple 7y ago
  If we can get all those steps onto electric power instead of internal combustion, then (assuming the power's coming from renewables, hydroelectric, or nuclear) that should eliminate the issue, right?
- Xixi 7y ago
  Keep in mind that the current alternative to building with wood is to use concrete, which has a tremendous CO2 cost [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844
  - dredds 7y ago
    We should also look to compare hempcrete or similar lightweight materials with superior insulation qualities; "an un-rendered 30 cm thick hemp concrete wall enables a storage of 36.08 kg of CO2 per m2 [1]." [1] https://urbannext.net/hemp-concrete/ https://urbannext.net/hemp-concrete/

philipkglass 7y ago

Electricity from solar photovoltaic generation has life cycle emissions 90-95% lower than fossil-derived electricity, per median figures in the IPCC's 2014 tabulation of global warming potential of selected electricity sources. Geothermal, concentrated solar power, nuclear power, and wind power have even lower life cycle emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis... Displacing fossil-derived electricity with enough low-carbon electricity to supply an air conditioner is more effective than raising the AC temperature one degree or planting a tree. The key issue is to reduce emissions. Sometimes that necessitates reduced consumption of energy services [1]. But reducing consumption is not sufficient and often not necessary to deeply cut emissions. If 3 tons of CO2 per capita per year is a sustainable emissions rate, then the US emits at about 550% of the sustainable rate. Even Cuba emits at 107% of the sustainable rate. No polity is going to voluntarily reduce their material standard of living below that of Cuba. And even a super-emitter like the US could reach the sustainable rate with a combination of more efficient energy use and non-fossil (renewable and nuclear) primary energy production substituting for fossils. So I think that "stop burning fossils for air conditioning" is a prescription closer to solving the root problem than "endure a little more discomfort in the air conditioning season." [1] For example, there is no foreseeable technology that will enable trans-Atlantic passenger flights without burning chemical fuels. Long distance flights could burn synthetic fuels made using non-fossil electricity, but that would raise fuel prices. Whether by fiat or by pricing, long distance air travel will necessarily become less common if/when aviation faces pressure to reduce CO2 emissions.

Retric 7y ago
Those emission numbers are based on other carbon sources. Move to electric trucks etc and solar panels represent much lower emissions on their own.
Robotbeat 7y ago
Lithium-air is one technology that would easily enable transatlantic flights. Even lithium-sulfur/metal/etc (which are much nearer term and can be had in small batches now if you call around) you could get you transatlantic (Canada to Ireland) with a very efficient airframe and even with lithium-ion with a very efficient airframe if you hop over Canada, Greenland, and Iceland.