6 ms·

Plant trees. Never thought of becoming a "tree hugger" but I've recently setup a recurring donation to a few charities - Ecologi, EdenProjects.org, OneTreePlan

Plant trees. Never thought of becoming a "tree hugger" but I've recently setup a recurring donation to a few charities - Ecologi, EdenProjects.org, OneTreePlanted, TreeNation, NationalForests.org. Spreading it across several orgs as I don't know yet which ones are more efficient than others. It's nice to think that somewhere in Amazonia my small forest will be offsetting tons of CO2 produced by driving around and consuming products, and it will live long after I'm gone. I wish that $100M "Carbon Capture" prize by Musk would go to planting a billion trees, the perfect carbon capture machines.

enriquto 5y ago
> trees, the perfect carbon capture machines. Why? plants are carbon neutral. They capture some carbon while they live, then liberate all that carbon when they die and are decomposed. No carbon ever leaves the biosphere. Carbon capture would happen if you cut down a whole forest (regardless of who planted it) and buried it a few miles underground, sealing the mine. That way the carbon leaves the biosphere.
- asplake 5y ago
  More trees, more biosphere
- gear54rus 5y ago
  as I understand, the jury is still out on that one: https://news.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-carbon-into-atmosphere-than-expected https://news.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-car...
- kortilla 5y ago
  You assume the dying trees did not reproduce.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  > then liberate all that carbon when they die and are decomposed. No carbon ever leaves the biosphere. No. They liberate very little. Bury or sink wood and it will stay put.
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    (I am not a geologist:) From what I understand, burying wood stopped being particularly effective a few hundred million years ago at the end of the carboniferous era. Before then, plants were producing tons of lignin, which few fungi or bacteria were able to break down. Most coal comes from carbon sequestered in this era. Peat bogs seem to be an exception to this; certainly there are still some scenarios/environments where burying wood will sequester the carbon. Maybe conditions like that could be artificially engineered in other locations.
    - raverbashing 5y ago
      You are correct! (as far as I know)
- oezi 5y ago
  I think you should challenge your beliefs on the statement "plants are carbon neutral", because there might only be two scenarios in which you are right that planting something and planting nothing has no difference: 1.) If you plant a commercial forest and then cut it down and burn it entirely. 2.) In the cosmic sense that all atoms will return to dust at some point. In all other scenarios the statement is not helpful in particular because: 1.) Climate change is happening right now and is an acute global crisis which requires extremely short term measures (on an geological time scales). Growing a forest right now, captures carbon now when we need it most. 2.) If you cut down the trees after some time, you can actually just stack the trunks and they will most likely just be inert for a long time. The number of fungi and beetles that are specialized in dealing with decomposing wood is surprisingly low. In comparison to Carbon Capture technologies, which try to capture carbon from air and then store that somewhere, using trees is extremely easy.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    There's nothing wrong in growing trees, I love trees. My point was that tree-planting initiatives for carbon capture seem incomplete if they don't address the actual capture (the stockage of the dead wood somewhere safe and inaccessible to decomposition). At that point, you realize that you don't need to wait decades for the trees to grow, you can cut them down and store them right away, letting new trees grow in their place. Even worse, a focus on tree-planting often feels like an inconsequential feel-good movement, that deviates attention away from the real problem: that every year we are unearthing millions of years worth of captured carbon and putting it back into circulation. Growing a forest while we burn thousands of oil tankers every year is like trying to remove water from the sinking titanic with a bucket. It doesn't harm, but it gets stupidly in the way.
    - gitanovic 5y ago
      You are actually spot on As long as we don't remove fossil fuel usage, planting trees is just something to make us feel better without actually fixing the problem. Also, you can plant as much as you want, it's going to be much less than what's burned by planters in amazon's forest alone, and they are actually burning the wood. The main take-away is that destroying something is always several orders of magnitude easier than building that thing, and as long as we don't stop destroying we won't manage to build at a faster rate, therefore stop deluding yourselves.
- asd4232 5y ago
  Or, instead of burying cut trees underground you could build houses from it. That's what we do in Finland where forests are plentiful. This way you effectively capture the carbon for 50+ years, and reduce use of cement which causes significant co2 emissions. In fact, a well built log house can last for hundreds of years if maintained properly. We have plenty of those with original wood from 1800's. Wood can be used to build larger buildings as well.
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    New wood treatment techniques even allow for wooden "skyscrapers"
niyaven 5y ago
I grew up in the largest man-made woodland in Western Europe (Landes forest). I don't know about these organisations but I can say that "planting trees" is not enough, there are very different ways of doing it. So I always take it with a pinch of salt. Let's the bad example of the Landes forest. It's a monoculture, all of the trees are the same: pinus pinaster. A "forest", usually shaped like a rectangle is just a block of pine trees having the same age. Everything else is cut, removed, because it would slow down the growth of the trees. At 35 or 40 years old, the entire block is erased. After that it's like a minefield, till the new trees are planted. Now is that a good forest? Well it depends what you hear by "good forest". Wildlife is very scarce, because animals depend on an ecosystem, and not just one type of tree. To hide, to eat, to reproduce, to protect themselves etc. So, sadly, you will hear more birds in a town or city that in that kind of forest. Is it resilient? Absolutely not. Since all trees have the same age, and the same weakness, these forests are very vulnerable. It takes one parasite (bark beetles or pine processionary for instance) to wipe out kilometers of forest. When usually trees in the middle of the forest are different from the one bordering it to resist to strong winds, here when a strong wind blows it can destroy an entire corridor (you can actually see the corridor) in the forest. Does it consume a lot of carbon? Well, I could not find accurate numbers for that forest. I hope so. But is it sustainable? Hell no. If you ask me, the best solution, instead of planting trees, is to just buy lands and let trees grow by themselves. It starts a bit messy, but after a few decades, the forest becomes self sufficient and resilient. And most importantly: full of life. Now the greatest irony, at least in France, is that it's illegal. If you buy forests and plan to leave it alone, you'll be blamed to have "too much biodiversity". This is not a joke: it's called "Plan simple de gestion".
- pkphilip 5y ago
  You make a good point about mono culture forestry and also forestry of the same age. That is bound to cause a lot of problems. However, agro forestry where multiple types of fruit trees etc are grown and which can be accessed by the community is a viable idea because the communities living around these forests benefit from the produce available from these forests and it also leads to a thriving ecosystem for animals and birds as well.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
I mean no offense to you. I question the actual "seven generations" value of donating to these charities, if I never see a single tree myself, nor able to partake in its planting directly.
- andyxor 5y ago
  I usually pick partially funded projects with active updates and thousands of followers with social media presence, like this reforestation project in Rioterra, Brasil https://tree-nation.com/projects/amazonia-rioterra-brazil/updates https://tree-nation.com/projects/amazonia-rioterra-brazil/up... The alternative is to dive into it myself like this startup did: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/reddit-yishan-wong-trees-b1803102.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/reddit-yis... I think YC should add sustainability startups/non-profits to their Request for Startups. The combined carbon footprint of YC network is huge.
- foobiter 5y ago
  would you do it yourself if it were an option?

enriquto 5y ago

> trees, the perfect carbon capture machines. Why? plants are carbon neutral. They capture some carbon while they live, then liberate all that carbon when they die and are decomposed. No carbon ever leaves the biosphere. Carbon capture would happen if you cut down a whole forest (regardless of who planted it) and buried it a few miles underground, sealing the mine. That way the carbon leaves the biosphere.

asplake 5y ago
More trees, more biosphere
gear54rus 5y ago
as I understand, the jury is still out on that one: https://news.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-carbon-into-atmosphere-than-expected https://news.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-car...
kortilla 5y ago
You assume the dying trees did not reproduce.
raverbashing 5y ago
> then liberate all that carbon when they die and are decomposed. No carbon ever leaves the biosphere. No. They liberate very little. Bury or sink wood and it will stay put.
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  (I am not a geologist:) From what I understand, burying wood stopped being particularly effective a few hundred million years ago at the end of the carboniferous era. Before then, plants were producing tons of lignin, which few fungi or bacteria were able to break down. Most coal comes from carbon sequestered in this era. Peat bogs seem to be an exception to this; certainly there are still some scenarios/environments where burying wood will sequester the carbon. Maybe conditions like that could be artificially engineered in other locations.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    You are correct! (as far as I know)
oezi 5y ago
I think you should challenge your beliefs on the statement "plants are carbon neutral", because there might only be two scenarios in which you are right that planting something and planting nothing has no difference: 1.) If you plant a commercial forest and then cut it down and burn it entirely. 2.) In the cosmic sense that all atoms will return to dust at some point. In all other scenarios the statement is not helpful in particular because: 1.) Climate change is happening right now and is an acute global crisis which requires extremely short term measures (on an geological time scales). Growing a forest right now, captures carbon now when we need it most. 2.) If you cut down the trees after some time, you can actually just stack the trunks and they will most likely just be inert for a long time. The number of fungi and beetles that are specialized in dealing with decomposing wood is surprisingly low. In comparison to Carbon Capture technologies, which try to capture carbon from air and then store that somewhere, using trees is extremely easy.
- enriquto 5y ago
  There's nothing wrong in growing trees, I love trees. My point was that tree-planting initiatives for carbon capture seem incomplete if they don't address the actual capture (the stockage of the dead wood somewhere safe and inaccessible to decomposition). At that point, you realize that you don't need to wait decades for the trees to grow, you can cut them down and store them right away, letting new trees grow in their place. Even worse, a focus on tree-planting often feels like an inconsequential feel-good movement, that deviates attention away from the real problem: that every year we are unearthing millions of years worth of captured carbon and putting it back into circulation. Growing a forest while we burn thousands of oil tankers every year is like trying to remove water from the sinking titanic with a bucket. It doesn't harm, but it gets stupidly in the way.
  - gitanovic 5y ago
    You are actually spot on As long as we don't remove fossil fuel usage, planting trees is just something to make us feel better without actually fixing the problem. Also, you can plant as much as you want, it's going to be much less than what's burned by planters in amazon's forest alone, and they are actually burning the wood. The main take-away is that destroying something is always several orders of magnitude easier than building that thing, and as long as we don't stop destroying we won't manage to build at a faster rate, therefore stop deluding yourselves.
asd4232 5y ago
Or, instead of burying cut trees underground you could build houses from it. That's what we do in Finland where forests are plentiful. This way you effectively capture the carbon for 50+ years, and reduce use of cement which causes significant co2 emissions. In fact, a well built log house can last for hundreds of years if maintained properly. We have plenty of those with original wood from 1800's. Wood can be used to build larger buildings as well.
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  New wood treatment techniques even allow for wooden "skyscrapers"

niyaven 5y ago

I grew up in the largest man-made woodland in Western Europe (Landes forest). I don't know about these organisations but I can say that "planting trees" is not enough, there are very different ways of doing it. So I always take it with a pinch of salt. Let's the bad example of the Landes forest. It's a monoculture, all of the trees are the same: pinus pinaster. A "forest", usually shaped like a rectangle is just a block of pine trees having the same age. Everything else is cut, removed, because it would slow down the growth of the trees. At 35 or 40 years old, the entire block is erased. After that it's like a minefield, till the new trees are planted. Now is that a good forest? Well it depends what you hear by "good forest". Wildlife is very scarce, because animals depend on an ecosystem, and not just one type of tree. To hide, to eat, to reproduce, to protect themselves etc. So, sadly, you will hear more birds in a town or city that in that kind of forest. Is it resilient? Absolutely not. Since all trees have the same age, and the same weakness, these forests are very vulnerable. It takes one parasite (bark beetles or pine processionary for instance) to wipe out kilometers of forest. When usually trees in the middle of the forest are different from the one bordering it to resist to strong winds, here when a strong wind blows it can destroy an entire corridor (you can actually see the corridor) in the forest. Does it consume a lot of carbon? Well, I could not find accurate numbers for that forest. I hope so. But is it sustainable? Hell no. If you ask me, the best solution, instead of planting trees, is to just buy lands and let trees grow by themselves. It starts a bit messy, but after a few decades, the forest becomes self sufficient and resilient. And most importantly: full of life. Now the greatest irony, at least in France, is that it's illegal. If you buy forests and plan to leave it alone, you'll be blamed to have "too much biodiversity". This is not a joke: it's called "Plan simple de gestion".

pkphilip 5y ago
You make a good point about mono culture forestry and also forestry of the same age. That is bound to cause a lot of problems. However, agro forestry where multiple types of fruit trees etc are grown and which can be accessed by the community is a viable idea because the communities living around these forests benefit from the produce available from these forests and it also leads to a thriving ecosystem for animals and birds as well.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

I mean no offense to you. I question the actual "seven generations" value of donating to these charities, if I never see a single tree myself, nor able to partake in its planting directly.

andyxor 5y ago
I usually pick partially funded projects with active updates and thousands of followers with social media presence, like this reforestation project in Rioterra, Brasil https://tree-nation.com/projects/amazonia-rioterra-brazil/updates https://tree-nation.com/projects/amazonia-rioterra-brazil/up... The alternative is to dive into it myself like this startup did: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/reddit-yishan-wong-trees-b1803102.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/reddit-yis... I think YC should add sustainability startups/non-profits to their Request for Startups. The combined carbon footprint of YC network is huge.
foobiter 5y ago
would you do it yourself if it were an option?