9 ms·

How to plant a forest: Context is key

46 points by zokula 5y ago

brandmeyer 5y ago
There is a case where forest growth is providing a positive feedback to climate change. The boreal forest is slowly replacing tundra on its boundary, which reduces the albedo in the Arctic. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1064-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1064-7
- inetknght 5y ago
  > reduces the albedo in the Arctic. DO you really think that it's the growing forest that's the cause and not the symptom?
  - brandmeyer 5y ago
    Its a positive feedback. More of an "exacerbating effect" than either cause or symptom.
gregwebs 5y ago
Summary: Monoculture tree planting can actually degrade the environment. Reforestation of a natural forest environment is good. If planting x trees is an incentivized metric you can end up with most of the trees dieing or with a monoculture forest that degrades the land.
- vondur 5y ago
  Yeah, I haven’t looked at the article, but I remember the Chinese did exactly that when trying to fight desertification that’s approaching Beijing. I think most of the trees are dead now.
paulcole 5y ago
I firmly believe the only thing good for the planet is fewer people — and to cut off the inevitable reply, no I don’t think this logically means I should kill myself. Nothing else makes any sense to me. There’s a 0% chance the world works together to “fix” our environmental mess. Nothing to date gives me the slightest hope this is a solvable problem. Just don’t have kids. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Or do have kids. Whatever, it doesn’t really matter.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Most previous environmental issues were somehow, if sloppily, fixed over time. Humans are not as thick as you insinuate. Some of them, yes, but the awareness of climate issues is already fairly widespread in most developed countries and is slowly seeping into other parts of the world as well. I firmly believe that we will be able to sequester carbon economically one day. I am not able to say when, of course. But there are a lot of ways to sequester carbon already, even though expensive ones, and I don't see why they should stay expensive forever. Humans are pretty good in applied chemistry and always come with ways to do things cheaper. And carbon sequestration isn't something that would require consent of the entire world. Even five or six countries working together could pull it off.
- bitconion 5y ago
  >Just don't have ... "Idiocracy"(2006) scenario :-)
- Glavnokoman 5y ago
  From a pure logic point of view you'd better kill somebody who thinks the more people the better. But people are generally not good with logic especially when their beliefs are questioned.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    This is the kind of reductio ad absurdum nonsense I was hoping to avoid.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
enriquto 5y ago
All plants are carbon neutral. What we need to do is to stop adding new fossil carbon into the biosphere.
- frankbreetz 5y ago
  If they decompose they are carbon neutral. I've seen some schemes calling for the burying/sinking of organic matter so that would be a carbon negative process (assuming the act of burying/sinking doesn't release too much carbon) If you plant a new forest it would take some carbon out of the atmosphere because old dying trees would be replaced by new tree. Sure eventually the carbon inputs and outputs would be equal, but the built up forest would hold some carbon.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    > the burying/sinking of organic matter Sure, if you bury wood in deep mines and seal them, you are removing carbon from the biosphere. But for that, it doesn't really matter if it was wood that you grew or an already existing forest. The mere act of planting is neutral, it's the burying that is important. By that, you notice that it would be fairly idiotic to keep unearthing old carbon and burying new carbon at the same time. Thus, it is absolutely essential to stop unearthing million-year-old carbon and putting it in circulation.
    - mistrial9 5y ago
      The statement here is "all plants are carbon neutral" and therefore ".. carbon mitigation actions involving plants are idiotic" ?! .. Can someone with actual knowledge please break this thought-cycle while I am not thinking about consecutive 43+ (110F) degree days here?
      - enriquto 5y ago
        Planting plants is great and it will make you and me happy. I also love plants and forests. But if we still keep mining oil and burning it, we'll have warmer and warmer days every year due to the greenhouse effect.
11235813213455 5y ago
A tree has so many benefits, not just capturing CO2 and de-pollution. They're natural air conditoners, maintain temperature, maintain water, they help the soil, help smaller plants nearby, help a whole ecosystem, let alone fruits that are literally super food (minerals, vitamins, fibers, ..), above all when it's local (producers exporting fruits obviously pick them too early in their maturation)
- coding123 5y ago
  They absolutely are air conditioners. There's an orchard of either almonds or something else that I drive by daily in CA. The area around the orchard is about 10 degrees less than the rest of the area.
- cesarb 5y ago
  > A tree has so many benefits, not just capturing CO2 and de-pollution. Indeed. I've heard on the news that one of the reasons for the current drought here in Brazil is the loss of the forests which carried humidity from the Amazon towards the south, where many important basins are located. Since most of the electric power here in Brazil comes from hydroelectric dams, and most of them are in rivers coming from these basins, this drought leads to an increase in the use of thermal generation, which means an increase on the CO2 output.
asdswe 5y ago
Planting trees should be combined with sustainable harvesting, and using the wood material for building, replacing as much carbon emitting concrete as possible. The buildings should also be built and maintained so that they last as long as possible, effectively acting as long-term carbon sinks. This way we could have both forests and urban areas acting as carbon sinks. Somebody should tell Americans and EU leaders that wooden buildings do indeed exist already.
- Darmody 5y ago
  What is "sustainable harvesting"? Planting more than chopping down? It goes beyond that. A forest is not only a collection of trees. To have a forest you also need an undergrowth (I think it's called that way). That's why we have less forest but more trees in some places in Europe. We need urgently to stop cutting virgin forests. There are not many left and it'll take centuries, maybes millennia to have them back.
  - fredrikholm 5y ago
    On your last point: This process can be sped up via intelligent afforestation (Miyawaki, permaculture etc). Heavy mulching combined with densely planted native plants of different heights (everything from understory to canopy layer) effectively traps enough moisture and introduces a wide enough variety of microbes to sufficiently kick start a positive spiral mimicking virgin forests. This requires manual input of water and mulching for the first two years or so. After that point you have a self sufficient, dense forest that rivals natural ones. Combined with water harvesting (swales, check dams, man made ponds) this has been proven very effective in dry parts India, China, Northern Africa and Australia.
    - Darmody 5y ago
      I didn't know that. I'll look more into it, thanks.
      - fredrikholm 5y ago

46 points by zokula 5y ago

There is a case where forest growth is providing a positive feedback to climate change. The boreal forest is slowly replacing tundra on its boundary, which reduces the albedo in the Arctic. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1064-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1064-7

inetknght 5y ago
> reduces the albedo in the Arctic. DO you really think that it's the growing forest that's the cause and not the symptom?
- brandmeyer 5y ago
  Its a positive feedback. More of an "exacerbating effect" than either cause or symptom.

gregwebs 5y ago

Summary: Monoculture tree planting can actually degrade the environment. Reforestation of a natural forest environment is good. If planting x trees is an incentivized metric you can end up with most of the trees dieing or with a monoculture forest that degrades the land.

vondur 5y ago
Yeah, I haven’t looked at the article, but I remember the Chinese did exactly that when trying to fight desertification that’s approaching Beijing. I think most of the trees are dead now.

paulcole 5y ago

I firmly believe the only thing good for the planet is fewer people — and to cut off the inevitable reply, no I don’t think this logically means I should kill myself. Nothing else makes any sense to me. There’s a 0% chance the world works together to “fix” our environmental mess. Nothing to date gives me the slightest hope this is a solvable problem. Just don’t have kids. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Or do have kids. Whatever, it doesn’t really matter.

inglor_cz 5y ago
Most previous environmental issues were somehow, if sloppily, fixed over time. Humans are not as thick as you insinuate. Some of them, yes, but the awareness of climate issues is already fairly widespread in most developed countries and is slowly seeping into other parts of the world as well. I firmly believe that we will be able to sequester carbon economically one day. I am not able to say when, of course. But there are a lot of ways to sequester carbon already, even though expensive ones, and I don't see why they should stay expensive forever. Humans are pretty good in applied chemistry and always come with ways to do things cheaper. And carbon sequestration isn't something that would require consent of the entire world. Even five or six countries working together could pull it off.
bitconion 5y ago
>Just don't have ... "Idiocracy"(2006) scenario :-)
Glavnokoman 5y ago
From a pure logic point of view you'd better kill somebody who thinks the more people the better. But people are generally not good with logic especially when their beliefs are questioned.
- paulcole 5y ago
  This is the kind of reductio ad absurdum nonsense I was hoping to avoid.
- ipaddr 5y ago

enriquto 5y ago

All plants are carbon neutral. What we need to do is to stop adding new fossil carbon into the biosphere.

frankbreetz 5y ago
If they decompose they are carbon neutral. I've seen some schemes calling for the burying/sinking of organic matter so that would be a carbon negative process (assuming the act of burying/sinking doesn't release too much carbon) If you plant a new forest it would take some carbon out of the atmosphere because old dying trees would be replaced by new tree. Sure eventually the carbon inputs and outputs would be equal, but the built up forest would hold some carbon.
- enriquto 5y ago
  > the burying/sinking of organic matter Sure, if you bury wood in deep mines and seal them, you are removing carbon from the biosphere. But for that, it doesn't really matter if it was wood that you grew or an already existing forest. The mere act of planting is neutral, it's the burying that is important. By that, you notice that it would be fairly idiotic to keep unearthing old carbon and burying new carbon at the same time. Thus, it is absolutely essential to stop unearthing million-year-old carbon and putting it in circulation.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    The statement here is "all plants are carbon neutral" and therefore ".. carbon mitigation actions involving plants are idiotic" ?! .. Can someone with actual knowledge please break this thought-cycle while I am not thinking about consecutive 43+ (110F) degree days here?
    - enriquto 5y ago
      Planting plants is great and it will make you and me happy. I also love plants and forests. But if we still keep mining oil and burning it, we'll have warmer and warmer days every year due to the greenhouse effect.

11235813213455 5y ago

A tree has so many benefits, not just capturing CO2 and de-pollution. They're natural air conditoners, maintain temperature, maintain water, they help the soil, help smaller plants nearby, help a whole ecosystem, let alone fruits that are literally super food (minerals, vitamins, fibers, ..), above all when it's local (producers exporting fruits obviously pick them too early in their maturation)

coding123 5y ago
They absolutely are air conditioners. There's an orchard of either almonds or something else that I drive by daily in CA. The area around the orchard is about 10 degrees less than the rest of the area.
cesarb 5y ago
> A tree has so many benefits, not just capturing CO2 and de-pollution. Indeed. I've heard on the news that one of the reasons for the current drought here in Brazil is the loss of the forests which carried humidity from the Amazon towards the south, where many important basins are located. Since most of the electric power here in Brazil comes from hydroelectric dams, and most of them are in rivers coming from these basins, this drought leads to an increase in the use of thermal generation, which means an increase on the CO2 output.

asdswe 5y ago

Planting trees should be combined with sustainable harvesting, and using the wood material for building, replacing as much carbon emitting concrete as possible. The buildings should also be built and maintained so that they last as long as possible, effectively acting as long-term carbon sinks. This way we could have both forests and urban areas acting as carbon sinks. Somebody should tell Americans and EU leaders that wooden buildings do indeed exist already.

Darmody 5y ago
What is "sustainable harvesting"? Planting more than chopping down? It goes beyond that. A forest is not only a collection of trees. To have a forest you also need an undergrowth (I think it's called that way). That's why we have less forest but more trees in some places in Europe. We need urgently to stop cutting virgin forests. There are not many left and it'll take centuries, maybes millennia to have them back.
- fredrikholm 5y ago
  On your last point: This process can be sped up via intelligent afforestation (Miyawaki, permaculture etc). Heavy mulching combined with densely planted native plants of different heights (everything from understory to canopy layer) effectively traps enough moisture and introduces a wide enough variety of microbes to sufficiently kick start a positive spiral mimicking virgin forests. This requires manual input of water and mulching for the first two years or so. After that point you have a self sufficient, dense forest that rivals natural ones. Combined with water harvesting (swales, check dams, man made ponds) this has been proven very effective in dry parts India, China, Northern Africa and Australia.
  - Darmody 5y ago
    I didn't know that. I'll look more into it, thanks.
    - fredrikholm 5y ago