6 ms·

Empress trees certainly have some impressive specs, but no one plant is going to be the silver bullet. Can we eventually take per capita carbon footprint down

Empress trees certainly have some impressive specs, but no one plant is going to be the silver bullet. Can we eventually take per capita carbon footprint down to a fraction of what it was in 2016? I think so, if the people can be convinced to elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. Can vast regions in the USA and other countries be re-forested? Yes, if the willpower is there. Is it worthwhile to develop artificial carbon sequestration facilities that operate on vast scales? Yep.

bwb 7y ago
well said :), i vote for you!
tim333 7y ago
It might be done quite quickly with a proper carbon pricing regime. The UK carbon price is about £35/ton. Times 104 tons/acre is about £3500/acre which is probably enough to make a profit. Then just get VC funding for your carbon startup and off it goes. There are political and practical difficulties doing that but there are also difficulties with wrecking the climate that might outweigh those.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Might be a worthwhile start-up idea... I'm wondering...
  - anakaine 7y ago
    I'm in.
  - markdown 7y ago
    https://worldtree.info/paulownia-scam/ https://worldtree.info/paulownia-scam/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-17/timber-investment-schemes-leave-hundreds-without-life-savings/6862060 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-17/timber-investment-sch...
    - tim333 7y ago
      Ah. To summarise those some previous companies, Timbercorp and Great Southern pushed planting similar trees as a get rich quick thing and then went bust leaving useless trees and a lot of people with large losses. World Tree, featured in the Bloomberg article say they are different and do it better. I guess it's a tricky business to do well.
- Merg 7y ago
  It is basically in progress by largest forest owner in Poland - state company to be exact. It is called Carbon Forest Sylviculture (Leśne Gospodarstwo Węglowe). Over all it is more of a marketing scheme with very small impact. We tried to increase sequestration rates with correct sylvicultural regimes. Currently it is more like a way for companies to sound ecological. IDK if it can be profitable, remember land and everything cost and I think those profit margins would be very small.
JudgeWapner 7y ago
> elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. honest question: can you point me to any US politician that has stood up to a corporation or corporate interest with laws that effectively say, "No, you can't have what you want, the people need <this> instead." and - most importantly - got those laws passed? I can't think of one. I think obamacare came close (which became one of the most hardfought wins ever), and yet the health insurance lobby still came out ahead. I dare say that no congress shall ever pass a law that harms a corporation (a de facto constitutional amendment). What does that have to do with carbon control ? ICE auto industry, coal industry, oil and gas, etc, would all be "harmed" if US lawmakers passed anything that had a material impact on CO2 emissions. It would require multiple layers of alternative realities for that to ever happen, in my (admittedly cynical) opinion. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm saying we should give up/not try. I _want_ us to solve global warming. I just can't picture it happening (at least for the redress method I listed above).
- Brain_Thief 7y ago
  I don't know if this is the kind of answer you were looking for, but Elizabeth Warren was very successful in her efforts to get the CFPB off the ground, much to the displeasure of the financial sector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_.... It's true that under the Trump administration the bureau's behavior is being...modified...but it was quite a success when running as originally intended by Warren. Furthermore, both Warren and Bernie Sanders seem to have genuine convictions w.r.t. climate change, health care, social inequality, etc. Whether or not their particular points of view are desirable is open for debate, but their multi-decade commitments to these issues are beyond question. They seem to have non-trivial support in the electorate as well - I encourage you to check them out, especially if you're feeling cynical or anxious about the future.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    ok, they created a bureau, not a "rip consumers off and your executives go to jail (viz. wells fargo, HSBC...)" law. Great convictions are a start. but in order for them to actually pass legislation, they need other congress members to vote for them. and that's where the dirty tricks start (I wont vote for your X unless you vote for my Y, etc). I guess I'm contradicting myself a bit, because I said "name one" without acknowledging that it takes a majority in congress to pass anything. So yes, Warren and Sanders have the courage to face corporate interests. Thank you. I just yearn for the day where shareholders of XYZ get a 30% haircut because laws were passed that reigned in their company's behavior.
cwkoss 7y ago
We need to research what kind of mycorhizal fungi and microbes can be inoculated into the soil to best optimize for tree growth rate.
- Merg 7y ago
  It is heavily researched topic. You would need some way to microdose water and nutrients into plants. Forestry is science. There are loads of smart people working in this area currently.
dfeojm-zlib 7y ago
It would only cost about as much as the futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to implement Be/CCS solutions at scale to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels (280 ppm). The key is sequestration because without that, like the recent virtue-signaling in Africa, growing a bunch of trees in poor soil is pointless: it doesn't stop desertification, increased risk of forest fires and dying/burning trees above ground doesn't capture any net carbon.
- trickstra 7y ago
  How much is it in comparison to the subsidies for drilling oil?
gingabriska 7y ago
>Can vast regions in the USA and other countries be re-forested? Yes, if the willpower is there. China and India already plant a lot of trees. US can sit back relax and dedicate that space to more research centers and get ahead while China/India are busy squeezing their population and putting up large pieces of land for reforestation. Not every country has to do it, not many in Europe will shell out for reforestation. The carbon in atmosphere will have effect nomatter where the tree is.
- Merg 7y ago
  Large part of Europe already did it. USA is backwater it seems...
  - mitchty 7y ago
    Based on what? https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforest... The US is more forested than it has been in the past.
- driven20 7y ago
  This is a very selfish view. Plus, I don't think it's even valid.

bwb 7y ago

well said :), i vote for you!

tim333 7y ago

It might be done quite quickly with a proper carbon pricing regime. The UK carbon price is about £35/ton. Times 104 tons/acre is about £3500/acre which is probably enough to make a profit. Then just get VC funding for your carbon startup and off it goes. There are political and practical difficulties doing that but there are also difficulties with wrecking the climate that might outweigh those.

hef19898 7y ago
Might be a worthwhile start-up idea... I'm wondering...
- anakaine 7y ago
  I'm in.
- markdown 7y ago
  https://worldtree.info/paulownia-scam/ https://worldtree.info/paulownia-scam/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-17/timber-investment-schemes-leave-hundreds-without-life-savings/6862060 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-17/timber-investment-sch...
  - tim333 7y ago
    Ah. To summarise those some previous companies, Timbercorp and Great Southern pushed planting similar trees as a get rich quick thing and then went bust leaving useless trees and a lot of people with large losses. World Tree, featured in the Bloomberg article say they are different and do it better. I guess it's a tricky business to do well.
Merg 7y ago
It is basically in progress by largest forest owner in Poland - state company to be exact. It is called Carbon Forest Sylviculture (Leśne Gospodarstwo Węglowe). Over all it is more of a marketing scheme with very small impact. We tried to increase sequestration rates with correct sylvicultural regimes. Currently it is more like a way for companies to sound ecological. IDK if it can be profitable, remember land and everything cost and I think those profit margins would be very small.

JudgeWapner 7y ago

> elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. honest question: can you point me to any US politician that has stood up to a corporation or corporate interest with laws that effectively say, "No, you can't have what you want, the people need <this> instead." and - most importantly - got those laws passed? I can't think of one. I think obamacare came close (which became one of the most hardfought wins ever), and yet the health insurance lobby still came out ahead. I dare say that no congress shall ever pass a law that harms a corporation (a de facto constitutional amendment). What does that have to do with carbon control ? ICE auto industry, coal industry, oil and gas, etc, would all be "harmed" if US lawmakers passed anything that had a material impact on CO2 emissions. It would require multiple layers of alternative realities for that to ever happen, in my (admittedly cynical) opinion. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm saying we should give up/not try. I _want_ us to solve global warming. I just can't picture it happening (at least for the redress method I listed above).

Brain_Thief 7y ago
I don't know if this is the kind of answer you were looking for, but Elizabeth Warren was very successful in her efforts to get the CFPB off the ground, much to the displeasure of the financial sector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_.... It's true that under the Trump administration the bureau's behavior is being...modified...but it was quite a success when running as originally intended by Warren. Furthermore, both Warren and Bernie Sanders seem to have genuine convictions w.r.t. climate change, health care, social inequality, etc. Whether or not their particular points of view are desirable is open for debate, but their multi-decade commitments to these issues are beyond question. They seem to have non-trivial support in the electorate as well - I encourage you to check them out, especially if you're feeling cynical or anxious about the future.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  ok, they created a bureau, not a "rip consumers off and your executives go to jail (viz. wells fargo, HSBC...)" law. Great convictions are a start. but in order for them to actually pass legislation, they need other congress members to vote for them. and that's where the dirty tricks start (I wont vote for your X unless you vote for my Y, etc). I guess I'm contradicting myself a bit, because I said "name one" without acknowledging that it takes a majority in congress to pass anything. So yes, Warren and Sanders have the courage to face corporate interests. Thank you. I just yearn for the day where shareholders of XYZ get a 30% haircut because laws were passed that reigned in their company's behavior.

cwkoss 7y ago

We need to research what kind of mycorhizal fungi and microbes can be inoculated into the soil to best optimize for tree growth rate.

Merg 7y ago
It is heavily researched topic. You would need some way to microdose water and nutrients into plants. Forestry is science. There are loads of smart people working in this area currently.

dfeojm-zlib 7y ago

It would only cost about as much as the futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to implement Be/CCS solutions at scale to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels (280 ppm). The key is sequestration because without that, like the recent virtue-signaling in Africa, growing a bunch of trees in poor soil is pointless: it doesn't stop desertification, increased risk of forest fires and dying/burning trees above ground doesn't capture any net carbon.

trickstra 7y ago
How much is it in comparison to the subsidies for drilling oil?

gingabriska 7y ago

>Can vast regions in the USA and other countries be re-forested? Yes, if the willpower is there. China and India already plant a lot of trees. US can sit back relax and dedicate that space to more research centers and get ahead while China/India are busy squeezing their population and putting up large pieces of land for reforestation. Not every country has to do it, not many in Europe will shell out for reforestation. The carbon in atmosphere will have effect nomatter where the tree is.

Merg 7y ago
Large part of Europe already did it. USA is backwater it seems...
- mitchty 7y ago
  Based on what? https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforest... The US is more forested than it has been in the past.
driven20 7y ago
This is a very selfish view. Plus, I don't think it's even valid.