3 ms·

> BTW what you're actually doing by planting a tree is burning carbon to move an already existing plant from one place to another. That is true (unless you're

> BTW what you're actually doing by planting a tree is burning carbon to move an already existing plant from one place to another. That is true (unless you're actually planting seeds), but generally the idea is that another tree will grow where you took it from, so the end result is more trees.

ajuc 5y ago
Yeah but if there are any trees in the region where you plant - a tree would grow in that spot anyway if you just leave it be :) BTW one of the weirdest examples of "patriarchy" is the preference of city planners to plant only male trees (because they generate less "junk"). Which reduces the amount of new trees growing in and near cities significantly.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  That’s not necessarily true. Some places have been ravaged by desertification and so actively planting trees can facilitate a forest where otherwise there wouldn’t be any. Second, you can choose trees which are particularly good at sequestering carbon for long periods. Humans are already animals that act as “ecosystem engineers” (like beavers or trees). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer We just haven’t historically been very good at it (ie we’ve often historically reduced ecological diversity instead of facilitating it). I think we can do much better, and there are many examples of humans who HAVE done a great job at it (for instance, the man who planted a forest on an island in India). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZDSqyE1do https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZDSqyE1do Do you think the planet would be better off if everything else was the same but his parents had decided not to have him? So this is why I think we can’t apply a broad average of human footprint to whether someone should decide to have kids or not. Instilling values, such as being a net-positive to the environment and the value of choosing to live a net-carbon-negative life (and support continued climate action), can be more important than just the marginal impact of not having kids at all. Also, negative-sum thinking ends up in a pretty dark place pretty fast if brought to its logical conclusion. And it seems pretty obvious what the long term result would be if all climate-conscious people had no kids but folks who don’t give a crap about climate action raise lots of children.
- Firadeoclus 5y ago
  Very interesting! I never knew that a fair number of city trees are dioecious. What happens to all the female saplings? I would imagine that we can actually do a lot to accelerate the process of trees spreading over an area. And even a small speed-up compounds over time.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    Apparently they even cultivate species that aren't dioecious naturally to become so :) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/16/how-urban-planners-preference-for-male-trees-has-made-your-hay-fever-worse https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/16/how-urba... And of course some species are cloned because it faster and cheaper, so then female saplings aren't a problem. You clone what has higher demand. > I would imagine that we can actually do a lot to accelerate the process of trees spreading over an area. Yes I was a little facetious. I don't actually plan to persuade people not to have kids or not to do gardening. But when I see people gathering millions of dollars to use drones to plant trees I can't help but think it's focusing on the wrong (but cool) part of the problem.
monkeycantype 5y ago
Hello Ajuc and Firad, I don’t literally mean plant trees, what I mean is that unlike fruit-jet-miles, the carbon cost of people isn’t n * constant, people can make choices and take actions including actions that are carbon negative.

ajuc 5y ago

Yeah but if there are any trees in the region where you plant - a tree would grow in that spot anyway if you just leave it be :) BTW one of the weirdest examples of "patriarchy" is the preference of city planners to plant only male trees (because they generate less "junk"). Which reduces the amount of new trees growing in and near cities significantly.

Robotbeat 5y ago
That’s not necessarily true. Some places have been ravaged by desertification and so actively planting trees can facilitate a forest where otherwise there wouldn’t be any. Second, you can choose trees which are particularly good at sequestering carbon for long periods. Humans are already animals that act as “ecosystem engineers” (like beavers or trees). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer We just haven’t historically been very good at it (ie we’ve often historically reduced ecological diversity instead of facilitating it). I think we can do much better, and there are many examples of humans who HAVE done a great job at it (for instance, the man who planted a forest on an island in India). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZDSqyE1do https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZDSqyE1do Do you think the planet would be better off if everything else was the same but his parents had decided not to have him? So this is why I think we can’t apply a broad average of human footprint to whether someone should decide to have kids or not. Instilling values, such as being a net-positive to the environment and the value of choosing to live a net-carbon-negative life (and support continued climate action), can be more important than just the marginal impact of not having kids at all. Also, negative-sum thinking ends up in a pretty dark place pretty fast if brought to its logical conclusion. And it seems pretty obvious what the long term result would be if all climate-conscious people had no kids but folks who don’t give a crap about climate action raise lots of children.
Firadeoclus 5y ago
Very interesting! I never knew that a fair number of city trees are dioecious. What happens to all the female saplings? I would imagine that we can actually do a lot to accelerate the process of trees spreading over an area. And even a small speed-up compounds over time.
- ajuc 5y ago
  Apparently they even cultivate species that aren't dioecious naturally to become so :) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/16/how-urban-planners-preference-for-male-trees-has-made-your-hay-fever-worse https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/16/how-urba... And of course some species are cloned because it faster and cheaper, so then female saplings aren't a problem. You clone what has higher demand. > I would imagine that we can actually do a lot to accelerate the process of trees spreading over an area. Yes I was a little facetious. I don't actually plan to persuade people not to have kids or not to do gardening. But when I see people gathering millions of dollars to use drones to plant trees I can't help but think it's focusing on the wrong (but cool) part of the problem.

monkeycantype 5y ago

Hello Ajuc and Firad, I don’t literally mean plant trees, what I mean is that unlike fruit-jet-miles, the carbon cost of people isn’t n * constant, people can make choices and take actions including actions that are carbon negative.