10 ms·

In a warming world, New England’s trees are storing more carbon

83 points by chmaynard 6y ago

kanobo 6y ago
A question for an Entomologist - how does the woolly adelgid insect kill so many trees so quickly? They look so small and cute, is it from sucking too much sap from trees?
WalterBright 6y ago
It's obvious that planting more trees (lots more trees) are an important component to reducing atmospheric carbon levels. I'm astonished that there aren't national programs globally aimed at en-forestation. (Trees also provide building materials - what a great way to sequester carbon!)
- mc32 6y ago
  Exactly, trees are made of carbon sucked out of the CO2. It’s good all around. They sequester the carbon and we get the oxygen.
  - wahern 6y ago
    Most of the coal and oil we mine comes from a time before microorganisms could efficiently break down lignin and cellulose. Now that such organisms exist, trees alone can only temporarily sequester carbon. I guess planting more trees gives us some small buffer, but even were it significant it's not really a long-term solution.
    - mc32 6y ago
      If you expand forests that’s ongoing sequestration. One doesn’t count rainforests or boreal forests as “zero carbon” capture. They have an ongoing capturing capacity.
      - wahern 6y ago
        > If you expand forests that’s ongoing sequestration. If you expand forests it's a one-time sequestration. That's my point. > One doesn’t count rainforests or boreal forests as “zero carbon” capture. They have an ongoing capturing capacity. Each ecosystem has a turnover time. For rainforests it's like 20 years. For tundra it's as long as 65+ years. But in a stable state these carbon "sinks" are net zero carbon capture. For every ton of carbon they capture, a ton of carbon is released through decomposition. A recent study published in 2019 said that if total emissions, agricultural land use, and other factors remained steady, planting trees might buy us 20 years: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-o... The problem is that we're pumping out alot of carbon: about 10GtC/year. The entire Amazon rainforest sequesters only about 100-200GtC. Actually, the biggest problem as I said is that we're pumping out carbon from a resource (Carboniferous period deposits[1]) that can never again be recreated, at least not without significant geoengineering. [1] Carboniferous deposits occurred at a golden period, immediately after woody trees first emerged, but before microorganisms evolved that could decompose them; trees could be buried long enough to fossilize before microorganisms could release all the carbon back into the atmosphere. That can't happen today naturally, at least not at any scale that could help us.
        vnorilo 6y ago
        Thank you for the well-argued and rational post. To me, buying 20 years for decarbonization sounds kind of great. So, it's a fallacy to think we could just plant trees and otherwise go on as usual. We just need to be careful about language that might feed into defeatism: planting a lot of trees is not a wasted effort, it's a great thing to do. Yes, we need to do a lot more, but every year of extra time helps a lot.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      That's why we sequester the wood by building houses, etc., with it.
      - wahern 6y ago
        The more wood you use, the more inefficient your building methodology given the amount of energy needed for transport, construction, etc, as well as air conditioning, etc. The less wood you use, the less space you create for regrowth. (Indeed, the space taken for building a house is often space where trees could grow, so there's a very simple space trade-off at play.) And none of this factors in the huge amount of wood from demolition that we scrap every year, requiring energy to tear down, and much of which will decompose even in landfills. Plus, a place like the United States has 0 population growth absent immigration. Are we supposed to start tearing down houses just to build new ones? That's the kind of math that begat corn ethanol. The dynamics here are just horrible. Can we slow emissions growth this way? Sure. Can we stop growth this way? Eh... okay, maybe, since we're pretending. Can we reverse global warming, removing carbon from the atmosphere? Not a chance. The only way to turn the dynamic from zero sum to positive sum is with other, major technological advances, at which point playing games with trees and home construction would very likely be the least meaningful use of such new technology. EDIT: Here's a study that looks at various different models for wood processing and disposal. TL;DR: See figures #2 and #3. 100 years post harvest there's at best 5% net carbon sequestration, while most models show 0% net carbon sequestered. https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ThreatsForestHealth/Climate/CI-Ingerson-TWS2009.pdf https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...
        WalterBright 6y ago
        You're arguing it must be a 100% solution or nothing. I doubt there are any 100% solutions. But we only need 10 10% solutions, so I wouldn't be in any hurry to reject even a 1% solution. Oh, and also, there's always going to be a need for new construction even with 0 population growth. Better to use wood than concrete, as concrete is a large source of carbon emissions.
        6y ago
    - epistasis 6y ago
      You are very right. We need to use every tool at our disposal over the next few decades if we are going to avoid a climate disaster, and afforestation plays a role in nearly all routes to avoiding that disaster [1]. But that leaves it in the biosphere, and new forest is vulnerable to rapid deforestation and conversion to CO2 (fires, cultural change, etc.). We would ideally shift some of that highly mobile bio-sphere sequestration to far less mobile geologic sequestration. Most likely with technology that we haven't yet invented. [1] chapter 2, afforestation is part of AFOLU carbon dioxide removal (CDR) https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
- taylorlapeyre 6y ago
  We are working on this at Wren (YC 2019) — reforestation and regenerative agroforestry are very effective methods for sequestering and offsetting carbon. The more people that support these projects, the bigger scale they get. https://projectwren.com https://projectwren.com
  - minerjoe 6y ago
    "You need to enable JavaScript to run this app." Wonder what it is about?
    - taylorlapeyre 6y ago
      Trust me, I'd love to create a JavaScript-free version of our app! But for now we are dedicating most of our time to communicating with projects, our users, and generating ideas for making a real impact in the climate crisis.
      - minerjoe 6y ago
        Not asking for a non-javascript version of your app, just a landing page that doesn't require it to figure out what the heck a wren is and why it matters. You're using <noscript>, why not use that space to actually talk about what you are doing?
        chosenbreed37 6y ago
        Having a landing page style content is a great idea in that scenario!
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > (Trees also provide building materials - what a great way to sequester carbon!) Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but maybe companies should brand non-recycled paper products as carbon-sequestered paper instead, and tell people to send it to landfill rather than recycle it for maximum sequestration purposes.
  - schoen 6y ago
    Landfill might not be totally ideal because if it decomposes there, some of the carbon may eventually leave the landfill if gas is able to escape. I wonder if we should compost paper instead of recycling it? Or try to vitrify it?
    - riffraff 6y ago
      you can compost paper, but a lot of it is treated and doesn't decompose very well. E.g. we have a compost heap in our building's garden and someone keeps putting bits of paper bags there, which last years unless you proactively go and try to break them up. Also, wouldn't composting it release as much carbon as putting it in landfill? And landfills are bad in many ways. Recycling it seems a better idea.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      Paper, like trees, is carbon neutral in the sense that carbon is absorbed then released. Zero net addition to the atmosphere. Forests can be used to sequester carbon because of the large number of trees continuously in existence even if individual trees come and go. For paper, the sequestration angle is more dubious but should also be considered based on the total amount of paper continuously in existence, not on the longevity of a single sheet of paper.
    - sp332 6y ago
      Removing oxygen prevents decomposition. My home town found out the hard way when they took samples from an old landfill, expecting to be able to build a park over it. Clay layers had been added to prevent runoff into a nearby river, and as a result the newspapers were still readable decades later.
- p1necone 6y ago
  Afaik fully developed forests are basically carbon neutral, so it's not a permanent way to offset carbon emissions. However we have a lot of unused, deforested land on this planet so it can be a carbon sink for quite some time.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    As I noted, mature trees can be cut to provide building materials, and new trees can then sequester more carbon.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    Mature forests are carbon neutral year over year, but they have a massive amount of carbon sequestered in them at any one time.
    - _jahh 6y ago
      not to mention the production of humus
- doubleocherry 6y ago
  Planting more trees has many benefits to the planet and society, and trees can be a large carbon sink - but planting trees doesn't always help mitigate climate change, and in some cases can exacerbate the problem. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-doesnt-always-help-with-climate-change https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-d...
- moultano 6y ago
  It's the wrong order of magnitude. Reforestation can undo the climate impact of deforestation, but that's pretty small.
  - _jahh 6y ago
    on what basis, there is easily sufficient reforestation land compared to building for instance solar farms on greenfield
    - moultano 6y ago
      The forests were in equilibrium before we cut them down. At best reforesting them can absorb the amount of carbon it takes to get them back in equilibrium, which is the same amount that was released when they were cut down.
- _jahh 6y ago
  https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall/ https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/pakistan-virus-idled-workers-hired-plant-trees-200429070109237.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/pakistan-virus-idled-... https://norad.no/en/front/thematic-areas/climate-change-and-environment/norways-international-climate-and-forest-initiative-nicfi/ https://norad.no/en/front/thematic-areas/climate-change-and-...
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  If land is left alone, trees will plant themselves! Instead of using humans to plant trees, we should look at why humans are not allowing trees to grow. Two other issues: 1) Technology is the wrong way at looking at this for most of the planet. It's only in small areas of the globe where nature needs a guiding hand via irrigation and fertilization for example. Just leaving stuff alone will work for most places. 2) Tree planting efforts are great for publicity and marketing which is mainly a human benefit. The urge to meddle and "fix nature" is both a symptom and cause of the situation we got ourselves in. It's like buying hair transplants on your head when you could just stop shaving.
reustle 6y ago
If you are interested in the topic of reforestation / deforestation, I highly suggest checking out the Global Forest Watch map https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/ https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/
drewmol 6y ago
Tldr; It's a very short article just read it They measure carbon release from the soil of tree's, and data shows that the trees are storing more carbon (actually, releasing less carbon if I understand correctly) as they get older and larger, the trees referenced are 200+ years old now. I don't see anything to justify the 'warming world' mentioned in the title, but trees capture more carbon as they grow larger fwiw.
seanwilson 6y ago
For the people here promoting planting more trees and new technology as a solution, have you seriously considered: 1) How many existing forests we wouldn't have to cut down if we transitioned away from meat & dairy ? 2) How much extra space that would also give us to plant more trees? 3) How much green house gas are from animal farming in the first place? https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets: - There's 104 million km^2 of habitable land on earth - 40 million km^2 goes to meat & dairy (includes grazing land + land used for crops for animal feed) - 11 million km^2 goes to plants to feed humans - 83% of the global calorie supply for humans comes from plants vs 18% from meat (i.e. meat is very inefficient) - Demand for meat is going to continue going up so deforestation is going to keep going up: "As we get richer, our diets tend to diversify and per capita meat consumption rises; economic development unfortunately exerts an increasing impact on land resources. If we want per capita meat consumption to be able to rise sustainably at lower incomes, per capita meat consumption at high incomes will have to decrease." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...: > the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has estimated that agriculture (including not only livestock, but also food crop, biofuel and other production) accounted for about 10 to 12 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (expressed as 100-year carbon dioxide equivalents) in 2005[58] and in 2010.[59] Planting trees and new technology might buy us some time, but if our idealised lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable, we'll be back in the same situation again soon enough. I feel this uncomfortable truth is ignored by well meaning people. Waiting for lab grown meat isn't a realistic option either.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  Come visit the forests in Western Kansas where they had to clear-cut thousands of acres for the dairy farms and cattle feedlots. (sarcasm as there's probably an average of less than 100 trees per square mile here). Dairy farm street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4449329,-100.8322638,3a,75y,123.23h,89.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8GaxjPaYU7JzKVX3lAu5AA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8GaxjPaYU7JzKVX3lAu5AA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D68.20449%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4449329,-100.8322638,3a,75y,... You will notice the trees in the above view are clustered around the offices. Feedlot street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9084198,-100.5339579,3a,75y,74.48h,84.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swPDFcYj2cnE5FCqUbUyCTQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwPDFcYj2cnE5FCqUbUyCTQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D284.88068%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9084198,-100.5339579,3a,75y,...
Kosirich 6y ago
I'm glad that the trend of reforestation is happening in Europe and will contribute to co2 capture. I think it's less due to deliberate efforts and more a product of food production efficiency, closing of small farms and people transitioning to urban env. Besides being noticeable on satellite images it also affects local climate so in my area (NW Croatia) due to reforestation they had to update the climate models due to forests holding more moisture. (another side effect is increased number of wild boar)
cryptica 6y ago
It's good to read about these kinds of studies. Ecologists typically don't seem to account for evolution in their models for global warming. Nature is excellent at adapting to changes. If there is a surplus of anything, certain specimens will benefit from this surplus and nature will adapt and balance things out.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  It might take 100000 years to achieve the balance which will be quite different balance (eg all people die and Earth populated with giant crocodiles), but technically yes, nature will adapt and balance things out.
  - cryptica 6y ago
    I disagree about this. Populations can evolve rapidly within a few decades if the selection pressures are significant enough. If you look at the farming industry, there are many examples of evolution happening very quickly due to artificial selection pressures. Within a few decades, cows evolved to produce much more milk, chickens evolved to grow faster and produce large amounts of eggs, fruits evolved to have smaller seeds, grow faster and look better. Artificial selection pressures created by humans have a way of greatly speeding up evolution.
mrfusion 6y ago
It makes me wonder if we should remove some percentage of fallen trees in forests and sequester them? Otherwise all that co2 goes back into the atmosphere.

83 points by chmaynard 6y ago

A question for an Entomologist - how does the woolly adelgid insect kill so many trees so quickly? They look so small and cute, is it from sucking too much sap from trees?

WalterBright 6y ago

It's obvious that planting more trees (lots more trees) are an important component to reducing atmospheric carbon levels. I'm astonished that there aren't national programs globally aimed at en-forestation. (Trees also provide building materials - what a great way to sequester carbon!)

mc32 6y ago
Exactly, trees are made of carbon sucked out of the CO2. It’s good all around. They sequester the carbon and we get the oxygen.
- wahern 6y ago
  Most of the coal and oil we mine comes from a time before microorganisms could efficiently break down lignin and cellulose. Now that such organisms exist, trees alone can only temporarily sequester carbon. I guess planting more trees gives us some small buffer, but even were it significant it's not really a long-term solution.
  - mc32 6y ago
    If you expand forests that’s ongoing sequestration. One doesn’t count rainforests or boreal forests as “zero carbon” capture. They have an ongoing capturing capacity.
    - wahern 6y ago
      > If you expand forests that’s ongoing sequestration. If you expand forests it's a one-time sequestration. That's my point. > One doesn’t count rainforests or boreal forests as “zero carbon” capture. They have an ongoing capturing capacity. Each ecosystem has a turnover time. For rainforests it's like 20 years. For tundra it's as long as 65+ years. But in a stable state these carbon "sinks" are net zero carbon capture. For every ton of carbon they capture, a ton of carbon is released through decomposition. A recent study published in 2019 said that if total emissions, agricultural land use, and other factors remained steady, planting trees might buy us 20 years: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-o... The problem is that we're pumping out alot of carbon: about 10GtC/year. The entire Amazon rainforest sequesters only about 100-200GtC. Actually, the biggest problem as I said is that we're pumping out carbon from a resource (Carboniferous period deposits[1]) that can never again be recreated, at least not without significant geoengineering. [1] Carboniferous deposits occurred at a golden period, immediately after woody trees first emerged, but before microorganisms evolved that could decompose them; trees could be buried long enough to fossilize before microorganisms could release all the carbon back into the atmosphere. That can't happen today naturally, at least not at any scale that could help us.
      - vnorilo 6y ago
        Thank you for the well-argued and rational post. To me, buying 20 years for decarbonization sounds kind of great. So, it's a fallacy to think we could just plant trees and otherwise go on as usual. We just need to be careful about language that might feed into defeatism: planting a lot of trees is not a wasted effort, it's a great thing to do. Yes, we need to do a lot more, but every year of extra time helps a lot.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    That's why we sequester the wood by building houses, etc., with it.
    - wahern 6y ago
      The more wood you use, the more inefficient your building methodology given the amount of energy needed for transport, construction, etc, as well as air conditioning, etc. The less wood you use, the less space you create for regrowth. (Indeed, the space taken for building a house is often space where trees could grow, so there's a very simple space trade-off at play.) And none of this factors in the huge amount of wood from demolition that we scrap every year, requiring energy to tear down, and much of which will decompose even in landfills. Plus, a place like the United States has 0 population growth absent immigration. Are we supposed to start tearing down houses just to build new ones? That's the kind of math that begat corn ethanol. The dynamics here are just horrible. Can we slow emissions growth this way? Sure. Can we stop growth this way? Eh... okay, maybe, since we're pretending. Can we reverse global warming, removing carbon from the atmosphere? Not a chance. The only way to turn the dynamic from zero sum to positive sum is with other, major technological advances, at which point playing games with trees and home construction would very likely be the least meaningful use of such new technology. EDIT: Here's a study that looks at various different models for wood processing and disposal. TL;DR: See figures #2 and #3. 100 years post harvest there's at best 5% net carbon sequestration, while most models show 0% net carbon sequestered. https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ThreatsForestHealth/Climate/CI-Ingerson-TWS2009.pdf https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        You're arguing it must be a 100% solution or nothing. I doubt there are any 100% solutions. But we only need 10 10% solutions, so I wouldn't be in any hurry to reject even a 1% solution. Oh, and also, there's always going to be a need for new construction even with 0 population growth. Better to use wood than concrete, as concrete is a large source of carbon emissions.
        6y ago
  - epistasis 6y ago
    You are very right. We need to use every tool at our disposal over the next few decades if we are going to avoid a climate disaster, and afforestation plays a role in nearly all routes to avoiding that disaster [1]. But that leaves it in the biosphere, and new forest is vulnerable to rapid deforestation and conversion to CO2 (fires, cultural change, etc.). We would ideally shift some of that highly mobile bio-sphere sequestration to far less mobile geologic sequestration. Most likely with technology that we haven't yet invented. [1] chapter 2, afforestation is part of AFOLU carbon dioxide removal (CDR) https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
taylorlapeyre 6y ago
We are working on this at Wren (YC 2019) — reforestation and regenerative agroforestry are very effective methods for sequestering and offsetting carbon. The more people that support these projects, the bigger scale they get. https://projectwren.com https://projectwren.com
- minerjoe 6y ago
  "You need to enable JavaScript to run this app." Wonder what it is about?
  - taylorlapeyre 6y ago
    Trust me, I'd love to create a JavaScript-free version of our app! But for now we are dedicating most of our time to communicating with projects, our users, and generating ideas for making a real impact in the climate crisis.
    - minerjoe 6y ago
      Not asking for a non-javascript version of your app, just a landing page that doesn't require it to figure out what the heck a wren is and why it matters. You're using <noscript>, why not use that space to actually talk about what you are doing?
      - chosenbreed37 6y ago
        Having a landing page style content is a great idea in that scenario!
jcranmer 6y ago
> (Trees also provide building materials - what a great way to sequester carbon!) Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but maybe companies should brand non-recycled paper products as carbon-sequestered paper instead, and tell people to send it to landfill rather than recycle it for maximum sequestration purposes.
- schoen 6y ago
  Landfill might not be totally ideal because if it decomposes there, some of the carbon may eventually leave the landfill if gas is able to escape. I wonder if we should compost paper instead of recycling it? Or try to vitrify it?
  - riffraff 6y ago
    you can compost paper, but a lot of it is treated and doesn't decompose very well. E.g. we have a compost heap in our building's garden and someone keeps putting bits of paper bags there, which last years unless you proactively go and try to break them up. Also, wouldn't composting it release as much carbon as putting it in landfill? And landfills are bad in many ways. Recycling it seems a better idea.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Paper, like trees, is carbon neutral in the sense that carbon is absorbed then released. Zero net addition to the atmosphere. Forests can be used to sequester carbon because of the large number of trees continuously in existence even if individual trees come and go. For paper, the sequestration angle is more dubious but should also be considered based on the total amount of paper continuously in existence, not on the longevity of a single sheet of paper.
  - sp332 6y ago
    Removing oxygen prevents decomposition. My home town found out the hard way when they took samples from an old landfill, expecting to be able to build a park over it. Clay layers had been added to prevent runoff into a nearby river, and as a result the newspapers were still readable decades later.
p1necone 6y ago
Afaik fully developed forests are basically carbon neutral, so it's not a permanent way to offset carbon emissions. However we have a lot of unused, deforested land on this planet so it can be a carbon sink for quite some time.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  As I noted, mature trees can be cut to provide building materials, and new trees can then sequester more carbon.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  Mature forests are carbon neutral year over year, but they have a massive amount of carbon sequestered in them at any one time.
  - _jahh 6y ago
    not to mention the production of humus
doubleocherry 6y ago
Planting more trees has many benefits to the planet and society, and trees can be a large carbon sink - but planting trees doesn't always help mitigate climate change, and in some cases can exacerbate the problem. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-doesnt-always-help-with-climate-change https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-d...
moultano 6y ago
It's the wrong order of magnitude. Reforestation can undo the climate impact of deforestation, but that's pretty small.
- _jahh 6y ago
  on what basis, there is easily sufficient reforestation land compared to building for instance solar farms on greenfield
  - moultano 6y ago
    The forests were in equilibrium before we cut them down. At best reforesting them can absorb the amount of carbon it takes to get them back in equilibrium, which is the same amount that was released when they were cut down.
_jahh 6y ago
https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall/ https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/pakistan-virus-idled-workers-hired-plant-trees-200429070109237.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/pakistan-virus-idled-... https://norad.no/en/front/thematic-areas/climate-change-and-environment/norways-international-climate-and-forest-initiative-nicfi/ https://norad.no/en/front/thematic-areas/climate-change-and-...
thinkingemote 6y ago
If land is left alone, trees will plant themselves! Instead of using humans to plant trees, we should look at why humans are not allowing trees to grow. Two other issues: 1) Technology is the wrong way at looking at this for most of the planet. It's only in small areas of the globe where nature needs a guiding hand via irrigation and fertilization for example. Just leaving stuff alone will work for most places. 2) Tree planting efforts are great for publicity and marketing which is mainly a human benefit. The urge to meddle and "fix nature" is both a symptom and cause of the situation we got ourselves in. It's like buying hair transplants on your head when you could just stop shaving.

reustle 6y ago

If you are interested in the topic of reforestation / deforestation, I highly suggest checking out the Global Forest Watch map https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/ https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/

drewmol 6y ago

Tldr; It's a very short article just read it They measure carbon release from the soil of tree's, and data shows that the trees are storing more carbon (actually, releasing less carbon if I understand correctly) as they get older and larger, the trees referenced are 200+ years old now. I don't see anything to justify the 'warming world' mentioned in the title, but trees capture more carbon as they grow larger fwiw.

seanwilson 6y ago

For the people here promoting planting more trees and new technology as a solution, have you seriously considered: 1) How many existing forests we wouldn't have to cut down if we transitioned away from meat & dairy ? 2) How much extra space that would also give us to plant more trees? 3) How much green house gas are from animal farming in the first place? https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets: - There's 104 million km^2 of habitable land on earth - 40 million km^2 goes to meat & dairy (includes grazing land + land used for crops for animal feed) - 11 million km^2 goes to plants to feed humans - 83% of the global calorie supply for humans comes from plants vs 18% from meat (i.e. meat is very inefficient) - Demand for meat is going to continue going up so deforestation is going to keep going up: "As we get richer, our diets tend to diversify and per capita meat consumption rises; economic development unfortunately exerts an increasing impact on land resources. If we want per capita meat consumption to be able to rise sustainably at lower incomes, per capita meat consumption at high incomes will have to decrease." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...: > the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has estimated that agriculture (including not only livestock, but also food crop, biofuel and other production) accounted for about 10 to 12 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (expressed as 100-year carbon dioxide equivalents) in 2005[58] and in 2010.[59] Planting trees and new technology might buy us some time, but if our idealised lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable, we'll be back in the same situation again soon enough. I feel this uncomfortable truth is ignored by well meaning people. Waiting for lab grown meat isn't a realistic option either.

Fjolsvith 6y ago
Come visit the forests in Western Kansas where they had to clear-cut thousands of acres for the dairy farms and cattle feedlots. (sarcasm as there's probably an average of less than 100 trees per square mile here). Dairy farm street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4449329,-100.8322638,3a,75y,123.23h,89.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8GaxjPaYU7JzKVX3lAu5AA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8GaxjPaYU7JzKVX3lAu5AA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D68.20449%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4449329,-100.8322638,3a,75y,... You will notice the trees in the above view are clustered around the offices. Feedlot street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9084198,-100.5339579,3a,75y,74.48h,84.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swPDFcYj2cnE5FCqUbUyCTQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwPDFcYj2cnE5FCqUbUyCTQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D284.88068%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9084198,-100.5339579,3a,75y,...

Kosirich 6y ago

I'm glad that the trend of reforestation is happening in Europe and will contribute to co2 capture. I think it's less due to deliberate efforts and more a product of food production efficiency, closing of small farms and people transitioning to urban env. Besides being noticeable on satellite images it also affects local climate so in my area (NW Croatia) due to reforestation they had to update the climate models due to forests holding more moisture. (another side effect is increased number of wild boar)

cryptica 6y ago

It's good to read about these kinds of studies. Ecologists typically don't seem to account for evolution in their models for global warming. Nature is excellent at adapting to changes. If there is a surplus of anything, certain specimens will benefit from this surplus and nature will adapt and balance things out.

lightgreen 6y ago
It might take 100000 years to achieve the balance which will be quite different balance (eg all people die and Earth populated with giant crocodiles), but technically yes, nature will adapt and balance things out.
- cryptica 6y ago
  I disagree about this. Populations can evolve rapidly within a few decades if the selection pressures are significant enough. If you look at the farming industry, there are many examples of evolution happening very quickly due to artificial selection pressures. Within a few decades, cows evolved to produce much more milk, chickens evolved to grow faster and produce large amounts of eggs, fruits evolved to have smaller seeds, grow faster and look better. Artificial selection pressures created by humans have a way of greatly speeding up evolution.

mrfusion 6y ago

It makes me wonder if we should remove some percentage of fallen trees in forests and sequester them? Otherwise all that co2 goes back into the atmosphere.