3 ms·

While I do agree with you for the most part, theres a few things I think are worth taking away. First, there's no harm in the fact that we need to plant more t

While I do agree with you for the most part, theres a few things I think are worth taking away. First, there's no harm in the fact that we need to plant more trees. Would we ever achieve the amount needed as stated here? Hell no. But it at least shows we do need to be serious and replant trees. Edit: For the most part there's no harm in planting trees as long as they're appropriate for the ecosystem, both type and density. One thing the article doesn't talk about, an Amazon forest can be denser per acre while a pacific northwest forest has to be thinner. Due to both pests and wildfire management. I also figure soil fertility too, but I don't have the data for that one. I think the most valuable take away, the amount of trees needed is a good way to visualize the extent of the problem. Mentioning that we pump however many billion pounds of, essentially "smoke", is meaningless to most people. To be fair, it's hard to wrap your head around the weight of a gas for 80% of the population, let alone how much is bad. But 80% of people can understand, we fucked so bad, we need to plant an extra 1 trillion plus trees to start fixing those problems. That's somewhat easier to understand. It's just more tangible for people to think about. Super accurate, no. But it's more about getting people's head around the problem to understand the extent of work needed. "Wow, 1 trillion trees. That's a lot. Is there anything we can do that's easier, but can lower that by 1 billion trees?" "Why yes, we can do..." "What else can we do so we don't have to plant another 1 billion?"

kaybe 7y ago
Also: These trees take decades to grow, at least, and will have to be protected from fires (which are only getting worse) and logging basically forever.
- corodra 7y ago
  The best info I can find, trees soak up ~45 pounds (tops) of CO2 in a full year after it's about 10 years old in optimal conditions. Different trees, different amounts along with growing conditions. That's just optimal hopes and dreams after 10 years since germination.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > will have to be protected from [...] logging basically forever Not really, as long as the lumber is used for durable purposes and the trees are replanted after cutting.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    There is no “durable purpose” for lumber for practical purposes. Today’s construction lumber can last 100 years, maybe 200 years if someone really cares, but beyond that it’s simply not worth maintaining it if it’s not some kind of historic landmark. 100 years is long on human scale, but mere moment with regard to carbon sequestration.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      At which point it can be buried in a landfill. That is, essentially, how all the coal be are burning formed in the first place. At any rate, it still increases the buffer of sequestered carbon and still means these forests can be logged, as logging with replacement for construction would sequester multiple times the forest's mass in carbon even if the extra sequestration period was limited.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kevingadd 7y ago
Sometimes planting a tree is actually bad. We've introduced specific species into our environment for decorative or other purposes before and then ended up regretting it because it was a bad decision [1]. There's also the issue of when we mass-plant a specific tree species and then the trees all get devastated by disease (due to being a monoculture), creating a massive fire hazard [2]. So we need to plant more trees, but it goes beyond 'appropriate for the ecosystem', we have to consider very many factors to anticipate whether the trees we're planting will be a nuisance or even a hazard in 10 years and whether they will even survive to sink carbon. We need to make sure we plant a good mix of native species to ensure that they'll survive diseases and shifts in weather, but also deal with the fact that not every species grows at the same speed somehow. Forests are complex ecosystems and we basically have to build new ones from scratch to really have an impact here, and that's more complex than just planting some trees. I used to be a big fan of Just Plant Some Trees but after seeing the impact of the two things I cite below I've developed some skepticism of the idea that we can just apply Tree Planting as a blunt-force instrument to compensate for all the damage we're inflicting on existing trees. 1: https://www.kqed.org/science/4209/eucalyptus-california-icon-fire-hazard-and-invasive-species https://www.kqed.org/science/4209/eucalyptus-california-icon... 2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/flexibility-key-as-b-c-faces-new-wildfire-reality-forests-minister-says-1.4957155 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/flexibility-...

kaybe 7y ago

Also: These trees take decades to grow, at least, and will have to be protected from fires (which are only getting worse) and logging basically forever.

corodra 7y ago
The best info I can find, trees soak up ~45 pounds (tops) of CO2 in a full year after it's about 10 years old in optimal conditions. Different trees, different amounts along with growing conditions. That's just optimal hopes and dreams after 10 years since germination.
vonmoltke 7y ago
> will have to be protected from [...] logging basically forever Not really, as long as the lumber is used for durable purposes and the trees are replanted after cutting.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  There is no “durable purpose” for lumber for practical purposes. Today’s construction lumber can last 100 years, maybe 200 years if someone really cares, but beyond that it’s simply not worth maintaining it if it’s not some kind of historic landmark. 100 years is long on human scale, but mere moment with regard to carbon sequestration.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    At which point it can be buried in a landfill. That is, essentially, how all the coal be are burning formed in the first place. At any rate, it still increases the buffer of sequestered carbon and still means these forests can be logged, as logging with replacement for construction would sequester multiple times the forest's mass in carbon even if the extra sequestration period was limited.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kevingadd 7y ago

Sometimes planting a tree is actually bad. We've introduced specific species into our environment for decorative or other purposes before and then ended up regretting it because it was a bad decision [1]. There's also the issue of when we mass-plant a specific tree species and then the trees all get devastated by disease (due to being a monoculture), creating a massive fire hazard [2]. So we need to plant more trees, but it goes beyond 'appropriate for the ecosystem', we have to consider very many factors to anticipate whether the trees we're planting will be a nuisance or even a hazard in 10 years and whether they will even survive to sink carbon. We need to make sure we plant a good mix of native species to ensure that they'll survive diseases and shifts in weather, but also deal with the fact that not every species grows at the same speed somehow. Forests are complex ecosystems and we basically have to build new ones from scratch to really have an impact here, and that's more complex than just planting some trees. I used to be a big fan of Just Plant Some Trees but after seeing the impact of the two things I cite below I've developed some skepticism of the idea that we can just apply Tree Planting as a blunt-force instrument to compensate for all the damage we're inflicting on existing trees. 1: https://www.kqed.org/science/4209/eucalyptus-california-icon-fire-hazard-and-invasive-species https://www.kqed.org/science/4209/eucalyptus-california-icon... 2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/flexibility-key-as-b-c-faces-new-wildfire-reality-forests-minister-says-1.4957155 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/flexibility-...