14 ms·

Downsides to planting trillions of trees

124 points by mrpopo 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago
Goodhart's law applies here. > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
- melomal 5y ago
  Does this count for global warming temps and everything else around it?
  - mrpopo 5y ago
    Obviously, if we decided to limit warming to 1.5C at all costs, an extremely effective solution would be detonating nuclear weapons or triggering volcanic eruptions to block sunlight, but it's also obvious that would have far-reaching consequences on the ecosystems, likely worse than global warming.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    Generally, it applies when the stastic is used to judge many individuals, rather than a single entity.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > pays farmers to plant trees on their land, but in some cases, they would clear a chunk of forest before putting seedlings in the ground.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    Depending on the age of those trees and what they do with them (hopefully homes) that's good
    - CameronNemo 5y ago
      Clear cutting is rarely a good forest management practice.
mrpopo 5y ago
A take on SV planting projects by one of the authors of the cited study : In the last week I've started to receive inquiries from people running tree planting programs wanting my help. I am suggesting that they shut down their programs. Here I will explain why: https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1444008823350603780 https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/14440088233506037...
- C19is20 5y ago
  No twitter for me - what did you say?
  - WithinReason 5y ago
    https://nitter.nixnet.services/ForrestFleisch1/status/1444008823350603780 https://nitter.nixnet.services/ForrestFleisch1/status/144400...
    - lucb1e 5y ago
      "Tweet not found"
      - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h In the last week I've started to receive inquiries from people running tree planting programs wanting my help. I am suggesting that they shut down their programs. Here I will explain why: 6:38 PM · Oct 1, 2021 130 2,550 751 7,090 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Some context: A couple weeks ago a team I am a part of published a paper demonstrating the failure of long-term planting programs in India nature.com/articles/s41893-0… or ungated: conservancy.umn.edu/bitstrea… Limited effects of tree planting on forest... Nature Sustainability - Large-scale tree planting programmes have been implemented or planned for areas around the world suffering from deforestation, but this study presents evidence that such... nature.com 12 75 7 583 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h This follows an earlier paper that discussed some of the common failings of tree planting programs more broadly: cedarhimalaya.org/images/Fle… 3 19 2 319 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h This work has received some attention in the press, and it seems like the folks who've been contacting me all read the same excellent story by @BenjiSJones vox.com/down-to-earth/226793… The surprising downsides to planting trillions of trees "We’re not going to plant our way out of climate change." vox.com 4 106 4 616 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h The people who contacted me are in California and appear to be Silicon Valley businesspeople who are entranced with the idea of tree planting as a climate solution. I have no reason to doubt they are genuine & mean well. 3 21 5 480 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Both have created web-based businesses where you can pay them to plant trees. The websites share a few characteristics. First, both clearly and directly reference the work of @CrowtherLab about a trillion trees as being their inspiration. 3 17 0 316 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h This is in spite of the serious doubts about the scientific validity of the trillion trees idea science.org/doi/10.1126/scie… and also goes against Bastin & Crowther's subsequent public statements. Comment on “The global tree restoration potential” Bastin et al.’s estimate (Reports, 5 July 2019, p. 76) that tree planting for climate change mitigation could sequester 205 gigatonnes of carbon is approximately five times too large. Their analysis... science.org 4 33 0 398 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h But its actually quite consistent with their initial press interviews. Bastin, Crowther, and their coauthors still have alot of work to undo the repercussions of their exaggerated initial claims (which they have since disavowed, including in the Vox piece linked above) 2 18 0 320 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Second, both websites make other dubious claims about tree planting. For example, one argues that planting more trees will increase the oxygen in the atmosphere. 1 14 0 282 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h This isn't really true - while oxygen cycles through trees on balance trees and forests are not really a net source of oxygen (because their decomposition uses up about the same amount of oxygen they create) and anyway, the planet is at no risk of running out of oxygen... 4 34 3 514 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Third, both sites sell tree planting as a way to offset personal carbon emissions. There is alot of debate in my field about the validity of this kind of offsets, too much for twitter, but a few key problems are: 1 27 4 514 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h 1. Land use change is already a major source of carbon emissions. The best way to think about forests absorbing new carbon is to think about this as offsetting carbon emissions lost from past forest destruction. 2 75 12 718 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h 2. Relatedly, there isn't enough space on the planet for natural ecosystems to absorb more than a small share of fossil fuel emissions. 6 99 11 723 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h 3. Trees planted today will absorb carbon in the future. Your emissions today start heating the planet today. 4 210 17 1,155 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h 4. Tree planting projects often fail, so if you plant trees rather than reduce your emissions, you might actually be doing nothing. 3 154 7 986 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h A project whose goal is to plant a certain number of trees is particularly vulnerable to failure because its counting the wrong thing. 2 46 3 557 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h If the goal is to absorb emissions, we should count the carbon, not the trees. A few small large absorb more carbon than a bunch of little trees. 9 69 5 754 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h When we plant trees with carbon uptake or forest restoration as a goal, we don't try to maximize the number of trees. We try to maximize long-term carbon uptake, and this might actually mean planting fewer trees up front besjournals.onlinelibrary.wi… Guidance for successful tree planting initiatives Tree planting, along with other strategies to increase tree cover in appropriate locations and contexts, can make a valuable contribution to ensuring the ecological and social well-being of our... besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com 4 143 9 874 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h In addition, if we focus on the number of trees, we lose sight of the relationships that support long-term forest sustainability. Do the people who live near the trees benefit from them? Do they get to make decisions about them? Will the site support trees in a warming climate? 7 83 7 845 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h If the company's goal is to plant a number of trees, they are less likely to pay attention to the broader context that supports long-term tree growth. 2 30 2 517 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h To me a focus on the number of trees, as opposed to, say, the well-being of the people growing the trees, the carbon stored in them, or the biodiversity they support, is a signal that the tree growing project is not well thought through. I can't support or advise such projects. 3 158 12 1,165 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h What to do instead? There are lots of organizations in the world working to improve land management in local contexts in ways that lead to win-win outcomes. More carbon, more biodiversity, and more human well-being. Oftentimes the key interventions aren't even biophysical 10 86 4 734 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h For example, sometimes better restoration outcomes might be the result of land reform, not distributing seedlings. 6 54 6 615 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Maybe this doesn't lend itself to a nice marketing slogan, but I hope these efforts shift in this direction. What they are doing now appears to be at best a waste of time & money, and at worst a dangerous greenwash. 5 30 2 620 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h I'll just add that lots of these good programs DO plant trees. Planting trees is wonderful. The right tree in the right place brings many benefits. But the wrong tree in the wrong place is harmful. We should focus on our overall goals, not on the number of trees we plant. 9 123 6 1,253 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h And planting trees does not give you an indulgence to burn fossil fuels the rest of the day.
aaron695 5y ago
Normal garbage from Vox. The cultists being controlled by the Industrial Environmental complex believe two incorrect things 1. It's a large concern for humans. 2. It's a large concern for the environment. Yet you can see here, repairing the environment barely even factors in. They can barely talk about the important of planting tree to keep the last of the ecosystems working. The don't actually care about the environment, their cult is around caring about CO2 and it's effect on the environment. Because this is hard and is easier for the people to control them. > away from species that locals prefer for firewood and animal fodder. In other words, residents of Himachal Pradesh actually had fewer useful forest resources. Fucking fire wood kills, it's one of the biggest killers. Vox is to stupid to even relate it to humans and the importance of electricity everywhere. HN loves to eat up the propaganda from bad governments and their faked tree plantings. And as Elon Musk points out it's easy to say but hard to do. But tree planting makes the world better, with a lot of room for improvement to be worked on, it's just a shame people don't actually care about the environment and won't fund that.
yosito 5y ago
Summary: planting trees != growing trees, and it is often used as a token to gain political support while the ultimate outcome is dead trees.
dreen 5y ago
In EU the farming subsidies pay most handsomely for trees, more than crops. Can't let them die, payout is dependent on yearly inspection. However, the soil needs to be in the bottom half of the quality scale, so most farmland out there does not qualify.
- cfn 5y ago
  That is true in theory but in many places the trees are planted and let to fend for themselves in the hope that a nearby weather or man-made event (such as a flood or fire) can be blamed on their demise. I have seen this happen several times and more (such as outright fraud where the trees are not planted at all).
  - dreen 5y ago
    Planting trees is expensive, especially if you are registered as Organic farmer (which means more EU money too). You get more money by keeping them alive. Not planting doesnt work, you will get an inspection and no money. Maybe depends on where you live I guess.
    - cfn 5y ago
      Maybe it depends, my experience was in the South of Portugal where you get a subsidy to plant olive trees (as an example). They get the big terraforming machines out and basically destroy complete hillsides and then plant the trees protected by 30cm high plastic tubes. The only care I saw was done by a few farmers that would replant and generally remove the vegetation around them which is hard and noisy work with petrol bushcutters. I also know someone whose plantation was burned down and he got a fine and had to replant because he forgot to notify the authorities. These were the exceptions that stood out. There are thousands of hectares of destroyed and abandoned by the fraudulent ones. You can even see it from Google Earth.
- CalRobert 5y ago
  Are forestry subsidies better than CAP? Another problem is that it's one way, I've look at afforesting grazing land but since you can't clear the forest to revert to grazing it loses resale value.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Grasslands are a more reliable carbon sink than trees: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-grasslands-reliable-carbon-trees.html https://phys.org/news/2018-07-grasslands-reliable-carbon-tre...
- vcdimension 5y ago
  Seagrass and mangrove is even better: https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/09/29/seagrass-the-plant-that-removes-carbon-30-times-faster-than-a-rainforest https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/09/29/seagrass-the-plant... https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1123 https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1123
- qayxc 5y ago
  Quasi-religious fixation on CO² is unhelpful. What about biodiversity? What about fresh water preservation, preserving topsoil and preventing mudslides, regional climate, local and global precipitation patterns, etc.? Forests aren't just about CO² and looking only at this one aspect is detrimental to the cause.
  - beebeepka 5y ago
    Some people consume too much media, they literally miss the forest for the trees
zxcvbn4038 5y ago
I keep hearing about farmers in poorer countries cutting down mature forest in order to profit by planting more saplings. That completely defeats the purpose, you think people would have caught on by now and put in checks against that. Planting trees at the wrong time of year also seems to be a constant issue. It’s not just an issue of sticking something into the ground. Timing and location matters. A single tree might make hundreds or thousands of seeds each year but the number that sprout and survive to adulthood is a very small fraction, there is a lot that needs to go right. Once all that happens it often takes several years before you start to realize the carbon benefits. So really things like “carbon credits” really need to be based on trees surviving to adulthood, not just sticking a sapling in the ground someplace. But once you get to that point there is ongoing benefit.
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  I recall most trees are actually counted by the number and not necessarily volume or any other more reasonable metric. For example here in the Netherlands you can easily cut down vast amount of trees as long as you simply replant the same amount of trees. Diversity doesn't matter and it results in images of seeing incredibly dense populated pine trees, that are so close they're even choking each other and just the tips survive. Suffice to day these "forests" don't really live long. Sometimes I think some of the most valuable assets will be century old trees.
- onion2k 5y ago
  A mature forest doesn't remove much CO2 from the atmosphere. A growing one does. Depending on what you do with the felled lumber, it could be much better for the environment to chop down a forest and plant a new one.
  - qayxc 5y ago
    A mature forest not only hosts diverse ecosystems, it also produces a beneficial local climate. It's also a gross oversimplification to look at CO² balance by absorption by trees only. Floodplain forests, forested swampland and broad-leafed trees also store massive amounts of CO² even when the forest is mature. But more importantly, mature and healthy forests offer a broad range of benefits beyond binding CO². Reducing the value of forests and the associated ecosystems to CO² is a flawed approach. There's many more factors involved, including preservation of fresh water.
NancyFXTrade 5y ago
Hi, I am Nancy robert, a professional bitcoin miner and forex trader, i can assist you on how to make money online by getting involved with a high profitable business (Forex, Binary Options, Bitcoin Mining ). Make huge profits weekly from your initial investment. Do you know with my trading software and signals you can make a good profit weekly if you invest with minimum of: INVEST $500 GET $6000 INVEST $1500 GET $15,000 INVEST $3000 GET $30,000 INVEST $4000 GET $40,000 INVEST $5000 GET $50,000 But the major condition here, is that at the end of every trading session, after successful withdrawal, we will have 20% of profit made, leaving you with 80%. This forex trading is helping the life's of me and my investors. Get started today with trading and earn a living. Work from anywhere and monitor your trade with your phone or computer. Kindly reply me if interested or Ignore if otherwise, No risk involved 95% safe.
VBprogrammer 5y ago
I'm not a climate expert but it seems to me that planting trees is a great solution to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which we should concentrate vast amounts of effort on right after we figure out how to stop releasing decades worth of fossilised carbon every year. Until that point it's just pissing into the wind.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I think we need to try everything to see what’s most cost-effective: every possible solution has to deal with the enormous scale of the problem — ~36 gigatons of CO2 emitted each year, and we need an effective 99.9% reduction in CO2 emissions sustained for the next millennium. That last 9.9%[0] is going to be incredibly hard if it was an actual reduction rather than some other solution, so carbon capture is probably important. But that means that even if planting trees is only 360 megatons/year — 1% of the ultimate problem — it can still be a big part of the solution. Might get replaced (economically speaking) with something more direct, like Sabatier-process fuels, but for now it’s worth trying. (But all that said, trying must always have the possibility of the answer being “no”). [0] Guestimate on the basis that last-percent is generally more difficult than first-percent, and how much comes from each sector.
- ahevia 5y ago
  Trees are part of the solution. If we were to reforest the world you begin to encounter other issues like land for farming(although agroforestry helps with this), land for solar farms/nuclear, etc. It is annoyingly complex. I would argue rewilding the land is more important for restoring biodiversity and reconnecting humans with nature. The carbon sequestration it provides is just an added touch. This short little web game: https://www.roadto10gigatons.com/ https://www.roadto10gigatons.com/ illustrates the benefits and tradeoffs of carbon removal solutions (from trees to direct air capture tech).
- varajelle 5y ago
  I think it's more millions of years than decades. And tree is a very short term solution, because they die and release all the carbon they absorbed as they rot.
Daub 5y ago
Former forester here. Some trees support more biodiversity than others. An oak tree forest is a lively place, full of insects and fungi, plants etc. A commercially planted pine tree forest is pretty much a dead zone: completely quiet, like a graveyard.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  What is it about pines that cause that?
  - Snoddas 5y ago
    It's not the pines themself. It's when its only pines i.e. lack of diversity.
  - PicassoCTs 5y ago
    They needle down and kill the surrounding weeds with those needles. The shadow of the canopy is much more interlocked and closed. Its dark, dry and dead down there.
  - pletnes 5y ago
    If trees are planted commercially, they’re often planted «too close» since not all of them survive to «old age». This makes them much more dense than what you’ll find in untouched nature. (That’s just one aspect, see other comments etc)
  - jcynix 5y ago
    Pines shade the ground throughout the whole year, densely planted ones especially. Leave trees, like beeches and oaks, loose their foliage in autumn, thus in early spring other plants get enough light on the ground to flourish, before the trees produce their leaves again.
  - Daub 5y ago
    It is their acid nature combined with there very high consumption of water, which is a consequence of their very rapid rate of growth. Modern pine trees grow like inflating ballon toys. You can almost watch them grow overnight. Old-school pine, like scots pine, are not so bad. But these are not grown commercially as much. Pity, it is a nice timber… more red than modern pine.
qolop 5y ago
Trees are like solar-powered carbon capture machines.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  Yup, they're great! Provided you have a lot of unused water and land, of course.
vcdimension 5y ago
I wonder if they're missing a trick here. In poor soil conditions it might be beneficial to have a fast turnover of trees to start off with; you could bootstrap the soil by burying baby trees to improve the conditions for the next batch.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  One similar method I've heard of is aggressively trimming fast-growing varieties and burying the trimmed limbs to build soil. Medium-size trees grow faster than small ones, and many respond to pruning by growing even more quickly.
pvaldes 5y ago
Serious things need serious effort to spend money and allow resources. And the will to keep spending until you succeed. Nobody would drive a car made by volunteers or go to a war without thinking into spending serious money so, why we still think that saving nature can be done cheaply?, why we think that can solve our biggest problem with just a beach shovel, a couple of donuts and praying for rain? Hire a few people, by Picea's sake! We need to put professionals that know what are doing here. They were replaced with free labor and let the saplings at the mercy of the weather and here are the poor results. School children doing unpaid job for a day is heartwarming, but bad management and mostly useless. Is just a publicity stunt. Saving nature requires resources, not selfies.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  True, and I think there is an appetite for that. Unfortunately that appetite naturally attracts opportunists that will do anything to game the metrics set by the people spending the resources. Not saying that's a reason not to try, but our willingness to spend must be tempered by a careful vetting of anyone willing to be paid.
thinkingemote 5y ago
Trees if left alone will plant more trees in most places. Humans really make a mess when they interfere with nature (i.e. humans caused the very climate emergency) and tree planting is often a kind of intervention for other people first; for carbon offset, charity, startup investment or to make people feel better, for example. The huge tree planting campaigns are not really about ecosystem improvement and biodiversity. Just ask any ecologist. They do raise consciousness in young people however, and in some places we do need to tend and water seedlings but... We just need to let the land do its thing and literally do nothing to much of the world. However that to many people is more shocking.
- qayxc 5y ago
  > We just need to let the land do its thing and literally do nothing to much of the world. We need to do a very simple thing to most of the world: leave. Regions that supported <10k people in the past are now populated by millions. Next thing they wonder why their agricultural practices and water use has become unsustainable and the land becomes unfit for human habitation... A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. That, however, to many people is unacceptable for religious and ideological reasons.
  - weregiraffe 5y ago
    >A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. I always suggest an author of such proposals to start by reducing themselves from the population.
    - beebeepka 5y ago
      Why? The person did not propose culling or anything. What they said is true: human population is the main problem.
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
        No, the Earth could easily sustain billions more if they had the same carbon footprint as Africans or Vietnamese (or many dozens other countries). Not all human beings have an unsustainable way of life so maybe we should stop considering population as being the problem but which part of the population is responsible for the problem. Just like we don't accuse "human population" for murder but those who are actually murdering. I bet all those who blame the population are among the few with the worst environmental footprint...
Datagenerator 5y ago
Seconded. Throwing money at the problem will only make it sub par to what nature has to offer as solution. We need to reduce and let go the flawed ideas of controlling and clearly see that the unlimited growth and money creation accelerates the problems we gave mother Earth. Enjoy nature while you can.
dave333 5y ago
Permaculture food forests are a very sustainable and productive way to create or restore a forest: https://youtu.be/6GJFL0MD9fc https://youtu.be/6GJFL0MD9fc
- carapace 5y ago
  That's an inspiring video! The thing that strikes me about it is the cultural shift from seeing Nature as a resource to exploit to seeing Nature as a partner and guide.
yegle 5y ago
The Great Green Wall is arguably a very successful forest program. The program started back in 1978 and estimated to finish in 2050: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China)
- stevespang 5y ago
  If the trees succeed in taking root, they could soak up large amounts of groundwater, which would be extremely problematic for arid regions like northern China.[8] Research of reforested areas of the loess plateau has found that the planted vegetation used decreased the moisture from deeper soil levels to some degree compared to farmland.[12] Land erosion and overfarming have halted planting in many areas of the project. China's increasing levels of pollution have also weakened the soil, causing it to be unusable in many areas.[6] Furthermore, planting blocks of fast-growing trees reduces the biodiversity of forested areas, creating areas that are not suitable to plants and animals normally found in forests. "China plants more trees than the rest of the world combined", says John McKinnon, the head of the EU-China Biodiversity Programme. "But the trouble is they tend to be monoculture plantations. They are not places where birds want to live." The lack of diversity also makes the trees more susceptible to disease, as in 2000, when one billion poplar trees in Ningxia were lost to a single disease, setting back 20 years of planting efforts.[13] Liu Tuo, head of the desertification control office in the state forestry administration, is of the opinion that there are huge gaps in the country's efforts to reclaim the land that has become desert.[14] In 2011, there was around 1.73 million km2 of land that had become desert in China, of which 530,000 km2 was treatable. But at the present rate of treating 1,717 km2 per year, it would take 300 years to reclaim the land that has become desert.[15] The worry is that the fragile land cannot support such massive, forced growth.[8] Planting trees next to the desert is senseless if the average rainfall and/or the underground aquifers cannot support the vegetation
dr_dshiv 5y ago
Wouldn't it make sense to build a lot more things out of wood? Like, paper and wood are pretty decent long term carbon stores, nah?
- lmilcin 5y ago
  At least here in Europe most wood that is being used is farmed. Paper and wood are not good long term carbon stores. All paper and wood will release its carbon back at some point, so they are only temporary stores. Good long term store would be something that lets a large amount of carbon be buried deep and never reenter the cycle.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    What's long term for you? Isn't 200 years pretty good?
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      How much of the paper that is being produced today do you think will survive 200 years? Let's be realistic about it. If paper/wood was meant to provide any dent in atmospheric CO2 we would have to be drowning in it. Remember, it is not enough to produce wood. You have to take care that it doesn't burn or rot.
      - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
        It rots and some of it's carbon stays in the soil, increasing the mass of the soil.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      I don't think the average lifecycle of a paper product is anything close to 200 years. Even for books that's pushing it, when you consider how much more toilet or printing paper we use and discard... And bleached paper generally uses enough toxins in its supply chain that it can't be easily composted. Therefore when the fibres are too broken down to be recycled again, it generally has to be disposed of in an anaerobic environment, which produces methane as a byproduct. Now of course, while methane is a powerful greenhouse gas it stays in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than CO2, and it can be captured for energy generation. Even so, while solid wood objects are probably quite good for carbon sequestration, I don't think paper will be unless a few key aspects of it change.
angelzen 5y ago
How to build a healthy forest: Step1: Fence off 100000 acres in a proper climate zone. Step2: Wait 1000 years.
stevespang 5y ago
Surprised to see the Vox story did not mention the obvious: 1) that you need consistent rainfall to grow sapling trees. a year or 2 of drought will kill off a new planting without supplemental watering. 2)If drought occurs then the tree planting either gets get's cut down by locals for firewood and the carbon returns right back to the atmosphere - - - or forest fire does the job. which brings up the thought that trees need protection from those who would merely kill them for construction and heating.
mhb 5y ago
What’s the Least Bad Way to Cool the Planet? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-geoengineering.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-ge...
zzzbra 5y ago
Was it just me or was this article a bit pedantic? Of course just playing trees alone isn’t going to solve climate change—but is anyone saying that?
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  It was less pedantic than I expected. Re-wilding land will be a big part of fixing climate change, but I think anything that focuses heavily on the planting of trees, rather than a holistic approach (e.g. stopping things getting cut down, asking why things are being cut down and fixing that cause) is probably a pointless stunt. I thought they covered that fairly evenly.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
carapace 5y ago
Akira Miyawaki has developed a method of (re-)creating healthy forests: > The Miyawaki method of reconstitution of "indigenous forests by indigenous trees" produces a rich, dense and efficient protective pioneer forest in 20 to 30 years, where natural succession would need 200 years in temperate Japan and 300 to 500 years in the tropics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki#Method_and_conditions_for_success https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki#Method_and_cond...
PrinceRichard 5y ago
This is the same story as every other large government initiative. Wasteful and often counterproductive to the stated goal. Trees plant themselves, ya'll! If we stop cutting them down they'll do fine.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
"to the erosion of culture and livelihoods of a nomadic group called the Gujjars" Ok, I object to the use of an environmental term here ... a lot. It's a false metaphor, used for charlatan effect by the writer trying to be "creative". Global warming will likely displace, at a minimum, 2 billion people in the coming decades. Want to know what erodes culture? Displacement of entire societies and civilizations. I count myself a liberal, but this kind of liberal hand-wringing is very counterproductive. Eggshells will be broken in attempting to avert climate change., and handwringing over animal grazing over land that very likely was deforested for that purpose (and for subsistence agriculture)... This isn't about "culture", that usual NIMBY roadblocks, of the liberal version this time, to block necessary economic and political change. While the article highlights obvious management problems (wrong species, wrong timing and tree management to ensure it takes root, perverse economic incentives), reforestation has enormous potential as one of a hundred necessary simultaneous fronts of the climate effort/war. We need reforestation. Carbon capture. EV transition. Energy efficiency. Strong carbon taxes on fuel. Olivine. Reduced meat/artificial meat/fake meat. Better agricultural technologies and techniques. New cement manufacturing processes. Nuclear. Solar. Wind. Energy Storage. Geothermal. Telecommuting. Tax changes to incent urban concentration rather than suburbs. Biofuels/algal fuels/synthetic fuel from carbon. But above everything will be change, experimentation, adaptation. Which everyone hates, produces winners and losers, and will exact a human cost, even though that real cost will be far less than the potential cost, something humans are absolutely awful at understanding. I guess what is most concerning is that global warming requires global coordination and cooperation, but the future will be one of climate wars and resource wars. I wonder if we have but a couple decades of a window for policy cooperation before things fall apart because of stresses from global warming and things descend into madness. So what's need is humanism, but not some junk like "we need to preserve this small tribe's outmoded economic basis!!!" for, what, anthropological purposes? Happy Saturday!
lilboiluvr69 5y ago
Does anybody know if/how Ecosia tackles long-term viability of their trees? Edit: From their site: "Of course, not all trees survive; that never happens. Ecosia therefore only counts trees that will survive for more than three years – a time when they’re robust enough to face most natural threats. For instance, if we plant 1000 trees and know from experience that the mortality rate in this area is 25%, we’ll only add 750 trees to our tree counter. We continually measure the survival rate of the trees we plant, through inventories and satellite technology, and adjust our tree counter accordingly." (https://blog.ecosia.org/how-do-ecosia-trees-survive-cut-down/ https://blog.ecosia.org/how-do-ecosia-trees-survive-cut-down...)
einpoklum 5y ago
While the article makes many valid points about how tree-planting projects can be mis-designed, ignorant of surroundings and context, chosen as a corporate gimmick etc. - the rhetoric is problematic. It insinuates that forestation/tree-planting projects are irrelevant or undesirable generally; and the title specifically has this insinuation. But that's not the case - and even the article concedes that such projects can and do succeed often and when done right.

124 points by mrpopo 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago

Goodhart's law applies here. > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

melomal 5y ago
Does this count for global warming temps and everything else around it?
- mrpopo 5y ago
  Obviously, if we decided to limit warming to 1.5C at all costs, an extremely effective solution would be detonating nuclear weapons or triggering volcanic eruptions to block sunlight, but it's also obvious that would have far-reaching consequences on the ecosystems, likely worse than global warming.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Generally, it applies when the stastic is used to judge many individuals, rather than a single entity.
WalterBright 5y ago
> pays farmers to plant trees on their land, but in some cases, they would clear a chunk of forest before putting seedlings in the ground.
- coryrc 5y ago
  Depending on the age of those trees and what they do with them (hopefully homes) that's good
  - CameronNemo 5y ago
    Clear cutting is rarely a good forest management practice.

mrpopo 5y ago

A take on SV planting projects by one of the authors of the cited study : In the last week I've started to receive inquiries from people running tree planting programs wanting my help. I am suggesting that they shut down their programs. Here I will explain why: https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1444008823350603780 https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/14440088233506037...

C19is20 5y ago
No twitter for me - what did you say?
- WithinReason 5y ago
  https://nitter.nixnet.services/ForrestFleisch1/status/1444008823350603780 https://nitter.nixnet.services/ForrestFleisch1/status/144400...
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    "Tweet not found"
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h In the last week I've started to receive inquiries from people running tree planting programs wanting my help. I am suggesting that they shut down their programs. Here I will explain why: 6:38 PM · Oct 1, 2021 130 2,550 751 7,090 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Some context: A couple weeks ago a team I am a part of published a paper demonstrating the failure of long-term planting programs in India nature.com/articles/s41893-0… or ungated: conservancy.umn.edu/bitstrea… Limited effects of tree planting on forest... Nature Sustainability - Large-scale tree planting programmes have been implemented or planned for areas around the world suffering from deforestation, but this study presents evidence that such... nature.com 12 75 7 583 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h This follows an earlier paper that discussed some of the common failings of tree planting programs more broadly: cedarhimalaya.org/images/Fle… 3 19 2 319 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h This work has received some attention in the press, and it seems like the folks who've been contacting me all read the same excellent story by @BenjiSJones vox.com/down-to-earth/226793… The surprising downsides to planting trillions of trees "We’re not going to plant our way out of climate change." vox.com 4 106 4 616 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h The people who contacted me are in California and appear to be Silicon Valley businesspeople who are entranced with the idea of tree planting as a climate solution. I have no reason to doubt they are genuine & mean well. 3 21 5 480 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Both have created web-based businesses where you can pay them to plant trees. The websites share a few characteristics. First, both clearly and directly reference the work of @CrowtherLab about a trillion trees as being their inspiration. 3 17 0 316 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h This is in spite of the serious doubts about the scientific validity of the trillion trees idea science.org/doi/10.1126/scie… and also goes against Bastin & Crowther's subsequent public statements. Comment on “The global tree restoration potential” Bastin et al.’s estimate (Reports, 5 July 2019, p. 76) that tree planting for climate change mitigation could sequester 205 gigatonnes of carbon is approximately five times too large. Their analysis... science.org 4 33 0 398 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h But its actually quite consistent with their initial press interviews. Bastin, Crowther, and their coauthors still have alot of work to undo the repercussions of their exaggerated initial claims (which they have since disavowed, including in the Vox piece linked above) 2 18 0 320 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Second, both websites make other dubious claims about tree planting. For example, one argues that planting more trees will increase the oxygen in the atmosphere. 1 14 0 282 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h This isn't really true - while oxygen cycles through trees on balance trees and forests are not really a net source of oxygen (because their decomposition uses up about the same amount of oxygen they create) and anyway, the planet is at no risk of running out of oxygen... 4 34 3 514 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Third, both sites sell tree planting as a way to offset personal carbon emissions. There is alot of debate in my field about the validity of this kind of offsets, too much for twitter, but a few key problems are: 1 27 4 514 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h 1. Land use change is already a major source of carbon emissions. The best way to think about forests absorbing new carbon is to think about this as offsetting carbon emissions lost from past forest destruction. 2 75 12 718 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h 2. Relatedly, there isn't enough space on the planet for natural ecosystems to absorb more than a small share of fossil fuel emissions. 6 99 11 723 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h 3. Trees planted today will absorb carbon in the future. Your emissions today start heating the planet today. 4 210 17 1,155 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h 4. Tree planting projects often fail, so if you plant trees rather than reduce your emissions, you might actually be doing nothing. 3 154 7 986 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h A project whose goal is to plant a certain number of trees is particularly vulnerable to failure because its counting the wrong thing. 2 46 3 557 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h If the goal is to absorb emissions, we should count the carbon, not the trees. A few small large absorb more carbon than a bunch of little trees. 9 69 5 754 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h When we plant trees with carbon uptake or forest restoration as a goal, we don't try to maximize the number of trees. We try to maximize long-term carbon uptake, and this might actually mean planting fewer trees up front besjournals.onlinelibrary.wi… Guidance for successful tree planting initiatives Tree planting, along with other strategies to increase tree cover in appropriate locations and contexts, can make a valuable contribution to ensuring the ecological and social well-being of our... besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com 4 143 9 874 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h In addition, if we focus on the number of trees, we lose sight of the relationships that support long-term forest sustainability. Do the people who live near the trees benefit from them? Do they get to make decisions about them? Will the site support trees in a warming climate? 7 83 7 845 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h If the company's goal is to plant a number of trees, they are less likely to pay attention to the broader context that supports long-term tree growth. 2 30 2 517 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h To me a focus on the number of trees, as opposed to, say, the well-being of the people growing the trees, the carbon stored in them, or the biodiversity they support, is a signal that the tree growing project is not well thought through. I can't support or advise such projects. 3 158 12 1,165 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h What to do instead? There are lots of organizations in the world working to improve land management in local contexts in ways that lead to win-win outcomes. More carbon, more biodiversity, and more human well-being. Oftentimes the key interventions aren't even biophysical 10 86 4 734 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h For example, sometimes better restoration outcomes might be the result of land reform, not distributing seedlings. 6 54 6 615 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h Maybe this doesn't lend itself to a nice marketing slogan, but I hope these efforts shift in this direction. What they are doing now appears to be at best a waste of time & money, and at worst a dangerous greenwash. 5 30 2 620 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h I'll just add that lots of these good programs DO plant trees. Planting trees is wonderful. The right tree in the right place brings many benefits. But the wrong tree in the wrong place is harmful. We should focus on our overall goals, not on the number of trees we plant. 9 123 6 1,253 Forrest Fleischman @ForrestFleisch1 20h And planting trees does not give you an indulgence to burn fossil fuels the rest of the day.

aaron695 5y ago

Normal garbage from Vox. The cultists being controlled by the Industrial Environmental complex believe two incorrect things 1. It's a large concern for humans. 2. It's a large concern for the environment. Yet you can see here, repairing the environment barely even factors in. They can barely talk about the important of planting tree to keep the last of the ecosystems working. The don't actually care about the environment, their cult is around caring about CO2 and it's effect on the environment. Because this is hard and is easier for the people to control them. > away from species that locals prefer for firewood and animal fodder. In other words, residents of Himachal Pradesh actually had fewer useful forest resources. Fucking fire wood kills, it's one of the biggest killers. Vox is to stupid to even relate it to humans and the importance of electricity everywhere. HN loves to eat up the propaganda from bad governments and their faked tree plantings. And as Elon Musk points out it's easy to say but hard to do. But tree planting makes the world better, with a lot of room for improvement to be worked on, it's just a shame people don't actually care about the environment and won't fund that.

yosito 5y ago

Summary: planting trees != growing trees, and it is often used as a token to gain political support while the ultimate outcome is dead trees.

dreen 5y ago

In EU the farming subsidies pay most handsomely for trees, more than crops. Can't let them die, payout is dependent on yearly inspection. However, the soil needs to be in the bottom half of the quality scale, so most farmland out there does not qualify.

cfn 5y ago
That is true in theory but in many places the trees are planted and let to fend for themselves in the hope that a nearby weather or man-made event (such as a flood or fire) can be blamed on their demise. I have seen this happen several times and more (such as outright fraud where the trees are not planted at all).
- dreen 5y ago
  Planting trees is expensive, especially if you are registered as Organic farmer (which means more EU money too). You get more money by keeping them alive. Not planting doesnt work, you will get an inspection and no money. Maybe depends on where you live I guess.
  - cfn 5y ago
    Maybe it depends, my experience was in the South of Portugal where you get a subsidy to plant olive trees (as an example). They get the big terraforming machines out and basically destroy complete hillsides and then plant the trees protected by 30cm high plastic tubes. The only care I saw was done by a few farmers that would replant and generally remove the vegetation around them which is hard and noisy work with petrol bushcutters. I also know someone whose plantation was burned down and he got a fine and had to replant because he forgot to notify the authorities. These were the exceptions that stood out. There are thousands of hectares of destroyed and abandoned by the fraudulent ones. You can even see it from Google Earth.
CalRobert 5y ago
Are forestry subsidies better than CAP? Another problem is that it's one way, I've look at afforesting grazing land but since you can't clear the forest to revert to grazing it loses resale value.

throwawaysea 5y ago

Grasslands are a more reliable carbon sink than trees: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-grasslands-reliable-carbon-trees.html https://phys.org/news/2018-07-grasslands-reliable-carbon-tre...

vcdimension 5y ago
Seagrass and mangrove is even better: https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/09/29/seagrass-the-plant-that-removes-carbon-30-times-faster-than-a-rainforest https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/09/29/seagrass-the-plant... https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1123 https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1123
qayxc 5y ago
Quasi-religious fixation on CO² is unhelpful. What about biodiversity? What about fresh water preservation, preserving topsoil and preventing mudslides, regional climate, local and global precipitation patterns, etc.? Forests aren't just about CO² and looking only at this one aspect is detrimental to the cause.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  Some people consume too much media, they literally miss the forest for the trees

zxcvbn4038 5y ago

I keep hearing about farmers in poorer countries cutting down mature forest in order to profit by planting more saplings. That completely defeats the purpose, you think people would have caught on by now and put in checks against that. Planting trees at the wrong time of year also seems to be a constant issue. It’s not just an issue of sticking something into the ground. Timing and location matters. A single tree might make hundreds or thousands of seeds each year but the number that sprout and survive to adulthood is a very small fraction, there is a lot that needs to go right. Once all that happens it often takes several years before you start to realize the carbon benefits. So really things like “carbon credits” really need to be based on trees surviving to adulthood, not just sticking a sapling in the ground someplace. But once you get to that point there is ongoing benefit.

hetspookjee 5y ago
I recall most trees are actually counted by the number and not necessarily volume or any other more reasonable metric. For example here in the Netherlands you can easily cut down vast amount of trees as long as you simply replant the same amount of trees. Diversity doesn't matter and it results in images of seeing incredibly dense populated pine trees, that are so close they're even choking each other and just the tips survive. Suffice to day these "forests" don't really live long. Sometimes I think some of the most valuable assets will be century old trees.
onion2k 5y ago
A mature forest doesn't remove much CO2 from the atmosphere. A growing one does. Depending on what you do with the felled lumber, it could be much better for the environment to chop down a forest and plant a new one.
- qayxc 5y ago
  A mature forest not only hosts diverse ecosystems, it also produces a beneficial local climate. It's also a gross oversimplification to look at CO² balance by absorption by trees only. Floodplain forests, forested swampland and broad-leafed trees also store massive amounts of CO² even when the forest is mature. But more importantly, mature and healthy forests offer a broad range of benefits beyond binding CO². Reducing the value of forests and the associated ecosystems to CO² is a flawed approach. There's many more factors involved, including preservation of fresh water.

NancyFXTrade 5y ago

Hi, I am Nancy robert, a professional bitcoin miner and forex trader, i can assist you on how to make money online by getting involved with a high profitable business (Forex, Binary Options, Bitcoin Mining ). Make huge profits weekly from your initial investment. Do you know with my trading software and signals you can make a good profit weekly if you invest with minimum of: INVEST $500 GET $6000 INVEST $1500 GET $15,000 INVEST $3000 GET $30,000 INVEST $4000 GET $40,000 INVEST $5000 GET $50,000 But the major condition here, is that at the end of every trading session, after successful withdrawal, we will have 20% of profit made, leaving you with 80%. This forex trading is helping the life's of me and my investors. Get started today with trading and earn a living. Work from anywhere and monitor your trade with your phone or computer. Kindly reply me if interested or Ignore if otherwise, No risk involved 95% safe.

VBprogrammer 5y ago

I'm not a climate expert but it seems to me that planting trees is a great solution to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which we should concentrate vast amounts of effort on right after we figure out how to stop releasing decades worth of fossilised carbon every year. Until that point it's just pissing into the wind.

ben_w 5y ago
I think we need to try everything to see what’s most cost-effective: every possible solution has to deal with the enormous scale of the problem — ~36 gigatons of CO2 emitted each year, and we need an effective 99.9% reduction in CO2 emissions sustained for the next millennium. That last 9.9%[0] is going to be incredibly hard if it was an actual reduction rather than some other solution, so carbon capture is probably important. But that means that even if planting trees is only 360 megatons/year — 1% of the ultimate problem — it can still be a big part of the solution. Might get replaced (economically speaking) with something more direct, like Sabatier-process fuels, but for now it’s worth trying. (But all that said, trying must always have the possibility of the answer being “no”). [0] Guestimate on the basis that last-percent is generally more difficult than first-percent, and how much comes from each sector.
ahevia 5y ago
Trees are part of the solution. If we were to reforest the world you begin to encounter other issues like land for farming(although agroforestry helps with this), land for solar farms/nuclear, etc. It is annoyingly complex. I would argue rewilding the land is more important for restoring biodiversity and reconnecting humans with nature. The carbon sequestration it provides is just an added touch. This short little web game: https://www.roadto10gigatons.com/ https://www.roadto10gigatons.com/ illustrates the benefits and tradeoffs of carbon removal solutions (from trees to direct air capture tech).
varajelle 5y ago
I think it's more millions of years than decades. And tree is a very short term solution, because they die and release all the carbon they absorbed as they rot.

Daub 5y ago

Former forester here. Some trees support more biodiversity than others. An oak tree forest is a lively place, full of insects and fungi, plants etc. A commercially planted pine tree forest is pretty much a dead zone: completely quiet, like a graveyard.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
What is it about pines that cause that?
- Snoddas 5y ago
  It's not the pines themself. It's when its only pines i.e. lack of diversity.
- PicassoCTs 5y ago
  They needle down and kill the surrounding weeds with those needles. The shadow of the canopy is much more interlocked and closed. Its dark, dry and dead down there.
- pletnes 5y ago
  If trees are planted commercially, they’re often planted «too close» since not all of them survive to «old age». This makes them much more dense than what you’ll find in untouched nature. (That’s just one aspect, see other comments etc)
- jcynix 5y ago
  Pines shade the ground throughout the whole year, densely planted ones especially. Leave trees, like beeches and oaks, loose their foliage in autumn, thus in early spring other plants get enough light on the ground to flourish, before the trees produce their leaves again.
- Daub 5y ago
  It is their acid nature combined with there very high consumption of water, which is a consequence of their very rapid rate of growth. Modern pine trees grow like inflating ballon toys. You can almost watch them grow overnight. Old-school pine, like scots pine, are not so bad. But these are not grown commercially as much. Pity, it is a nice timber… more red than modern pine.

qolop 5y ago

Trees are like solar-powered carbon capture machines.

lucb1e 5y ago
Yup, they're great! Provided you have a lot of unused water and land, of course.

vcdimension 5y ago

I wonder if they're missing a trick here. In poor soil conditions it might be beneficial to have a fast turnover of trees to start off with; you could bootstrap the soil by burying baby trees to improve the conditions for the next batch.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
One similar method I've heard of is aggressively trimming fast-growing varieties and burying the trimmed limbs to build soil. Medium-size trees grow faster than small ones, and many respond to pruning by growing even more quickly.

pvaldes 5y ago

Serious things need serious effort to spend money and allow resources. And the will to keep spending until you succeed. Nobody would drive a car made by volunteers or go to a war without thinking into spending serious money so, why we still think that saving nature can be done cheaply?, why we think that can solve our biggest problem with just a beach shovel, a couple of donuts and praying for rain? Hire a few people, by Picea's sake! We need to put professionals that know what are doing here. They were replaced with free labor and let the saplings at the mercy of the weather and here are the poor results. School children doing unpaid job for a day is heartwarming, but bad management and mostly useless. Is just a publicity stunt. Saving nature requires resources, not selfies.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
True, and I think there is an appetite for that. Unfortunately that appetite naturally attracts opportunists that will do anything to game the metrics set by the people spending the resources. Not saying that's a reason not to try, but our willingness to spend must be tempered by a careful vetting of anyone willing to be paid.

thinkingemote 5y ago

Trees if left alone will plant more trees in most places. Humans really make a mess when they interfere with nature (i.e. humans caused the very climate emergency) and tree planting is often a kind of intervention for other people first; for carbon offset, charity, startup investment or to make people feel better, for example. The huge tree planting campaigns are not really about ecosystem improvement and biodiversity. Just ask any ecologist. They do raise consciousness in young people however, and in some places we do need to tend and water seedlings but... We just need to let the land do its thing and literally do nothing to much of the world. However that to many people is more shocking.

qayxc 5y ago
> We just need to let the land do its thing and literally do nothing to much of the world. We need to do a very simple thing to most of the world: leave. Regions that supported <10k people in the past are now populated by millions. Next thing they wonder why their agricultural practices and water use has become unsustainable and the land becomes unfit for human habitation... A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. That, however, to many people is unacceptable for religious and ideological reasons.
- weregiraffe 5y ago
  >A massive reduction in population growth helps more than doing nothing. I always suggest an author of such proposals to start by reducing themselves from the population.
  - beebeepka 5y ago
    Why? The person did not propose culling or anything. What they said is true: human population is the main problem.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      No, the Earth could easily sustain billions more if they had the same carbon footprint as Africans or Vietnamese (or many dozens other countries). Not all human beings have an unsustainable way of life so maybe we should stop considering population as being the problem but which part of the population is responsible for the problem. Just like we don't accuse "human population" for murder but those who are actually murdering. I bet all those who blame the population are among the few with the worst environmental footprint...

Datagenerator 5y ago

Seconded. Throwing money at the problem will only make it sub par to what nature has to offer as solution. We need to reduce and let go the flawed ideas of controlling and clearly see that the unlimited growth and money creation accelerates the problems we gave mother Earth. Enjoy nature while you can.

dave333 5y ago

Permaculture food forests are a very sustainable and productive way to create or restore a forest: https://youtu.be/6GJFL0MD9fc https://youtu.be/6GJFL0MD9fc

carapace 5y ago
That's an inspiring video! The thing that strikes me about it is the cultural shift from seeing Nature as a resource to exploit to seeing Nature as a partner and guide.

yegle 5y ago

The Great Green Wall is arguably a very successful forest program. The program started back in 1978 and estimated to finish in 2050: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China)

stevespang 5y ago
If the trees succeed in taking root, they could soak up large amounts of groundwater, which would be extremely problematic for arid regions like northern China.[8] Research of reforested areas of the loess plateau has found that the planted vegetation used decreased the moisture from deeper soil levels to some degree compared to farmland.[12] Land erosion and overfarming have halted planting in many areas of the project. China's increasing levels of pollution have also weakened the soil, causing it to be unusable in many areas.[6] Furthermore, planting blocks of fast-growing trees reduces the biodiversity of forested areas, creating areas that are not suitable to plants and animals normally found in forests. "China plants more trees than the rest of the world combined", says John McKinnon, the head of the EU-China Biodiversity Programme. "But the trouble is they tend to be monoculture plantations. They are not places where birds want to live." The lack of diversity also makes the trees more susceptible to disease, as in 2000, when one billion poplar trees in Ningxia were lost to a single disease, setting back 20 years of planting efforts.[13] Liu Tuo, head of the desertification control office in the state forestry administration, is of the opinion that there are huge gaps in the country's efforts to reclaim the land that has become desert.[14] In 2011, there was around 1.73 million km2 of land that had become desert in China, of which 530,000 km2 was treatable. But at the present rate of treating 1,717 km2 per year, it would take 300 years to reclaim the land that has become desert.[15] The worry is that the fragile land cannot support such massive, forced growth.[8] Planting trees next to the desert is senseless if the average rainfall and/or the underground aquifers cannot support the vegetation

dr_dshiv 5y ago

Wouldn't it make sense to build a lot more things out of wood? Like, paper and wood are pretty decent long term carbon stores, nah?

lmilcin 5y ago
At least here in Europe most wood that is being used is farmed. Paper and wood are not good long term carbon stores. All paper and wood will release its carbon back at some point, so they are only temporary stores. Good long term store would be something that lets a large amount of carbon be buried deep and never reenter the cycle.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  What's long term for you? Isn't 200 years pretty good?
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    How much of the paper that is being produced today do you think will survive 200 years? Let's be realistic about it. If paper/wood was meant to provide any dent in atmospheric CO2 we would have to be drowning in it. Remember, it is not enough to produce wood. You have to take care that it doesn't burn or rot.
    - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
      It rots and some of it's carbon stays in the soil, increasing the mass of the soil.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    I don't think the average lifecycle of a paper product is anything close to 200 years. Even for books that's pushing it, when you consider how much more toilet or printing paper we use and discard... And bleached paper generally uses enough toxins in its supply chain that it can't be easily composted. Therefore when the fibres are too broken down to be recycled again, it generally has to be disposed of in an anaerobic environment, which produces methane as a byproduct. Now of course, while methane is a powerful greenhouse gas it stays in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than CO2, and it can be captured for energy generation. Even so, while solid wood objects are probably quite good for carbon sequestration, I don't think paper will be unless a few key aspects of it change.

angelzen 5y ago

How to build a healthy forest: Step1: Fence off 100000 acres in a proper climate zone. Step2: Wait 1000 years.

stevespang 5y ago

Surprised to see the Vox story did not mention the obvious: 1) that you need consistent rainfall to grow sapling trees. a year or 2 of drought will kill off a new planting without supplemental watering. 2)If drought occurs then the tree planting either gets get's cut down by locals for firewood and the carbon returns right back to the atmosphere - - - or forest fire does the job. which brings up the thought that trees need protection from those who would merely kill them for construction and heating.

mhb 5y ago

What’s the Least Bad Way to Cool the Planet? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-geoengineering.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-ge...

zzzbra 5y ago

Was it just me or was this article a bit pedantic? Of course just playing trees alone isn’t going to solve climate change—but is anyone saying that?

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
It was less pedantic than I expected. Re-wilding land will be a big part of fixing climate change, but I think anything that focuses heavily on the planting of trees, rather than a holistic approach (e.g. stopping things getting cut down, asking why things are being cut down and fixing that cause) is probably a pointless stunt. I thought they covered that fairly evenly.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

carapace 5y ago

Akira Miyawaki has developed a method of (re-)creating healthy forests: > The Miyawaki method of reconstitution of "indigenous forests by indigenous trees" produces a rich, dense and efficient protective pioneer forest in 20 to 30 years, where natural succession would need 200 years in temperate Japan and 300 to 500 years in the tropics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki#Method_and_conditions_for_success https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki#Method_and_cond...

PrinceRichard 5y ago

This is the same story as every other large government initiative. Wasteful and often counterproductive to the stated goal. Trees plant themselves, ya'll! If we stop cutting them down they'll do fine.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

"to the erosion of culture and livelihoods of a nomadic group called the Gujjars" Ok, I object to the use of an environmental term here ... a lot. It's a false metaphor, used for charlatan effect by the writer trying to be "creative". Global warming will likely displace, at a minimum, 2 billion people in the coming decades. Want to know what erodes culture? Displacement of entire societies and civilizations. I count myself a liberal, but this kind of liberal hand-wringing is very counterproductive. Eggshells will be broken in attempting to avert climate change., and handwringing over animal grazing over land that very likely was deforested for that purpose (and for subsistence agriculture)... This isn't about "culture", that usual NIMBY roadblocks, of the liberal version this time, to block necessary economic and political change. While the article highlights obvious management problems (wrong species, wrong timing and tree management to ensure it takes root, perverse economic incentives), reforestation has enormous potential as one of a hundred necessary simultaneous fronts of the climate effort/war. We need reforestation. Carbon capture. EV transition. Energy efficiency. Strong carbon taxes on fuel. Olivine. Reduced meat/artificial meat/fake meat. Better agricultural technologies and techniques. New cement manufacturing processes. Nuclear. Solar. Wind. Energy Storage. Geothermal. Telecommuting. Tax changes to incent urban concentration rather than suburbs. Biofuels/algal fuels/synthetic fuel from carbon. But above everything will be change, experimentation, adaptation. Which everyone hates, produces winners and losers, and will exact a human cost, even though that real cost will be far less than the potential cost, something humans are absolutely awful at understanding. I guess what is most concerning is that global warming requires global coordination and cooperation, but the future will be one of climate wars and resource wars. I wonder if we have but a couple decades of a window for policy cooperation before things fall apart because of stresses from global warming and things descend into madness. So what's need is humanism, but not some junk like "we need to preserve this small tribe's outmoded economic basis!!!" for, what, anthropological purposes? Happy Saturday!

lilboiluvr69 5y ago

Does anybody know if/how Ecosia tackles long-term viability of their trees? Edit: From their site: "Of course, not all trees survive; that never happens. Ecosia therefore only counts trees that will survive for more than three years – a time when they’re robust enough to face most natural threats. For instance, if we plant 1000 trees and know from experience that the mortality rate in this area is 25%, we’ll only add 750 trees to our tree counter. We continually measure the survival rate of the trees we plant, through inventories and satellite technology, and adjust our tree counter accordingly." (https://blog.ecosia.org/how-do-ecosia-trees-survive-cut-down/ https://blog.ecosia.org/how-do-ecosia-trees-survive-cut-down...)

einpoklum 5y ago

While the article makes many valid points about how tree-planting projects can be mis-designed, ignorant of surroundings and context, chosen as a corporate gimmick etc. - the rhetoric is problematic. It insinuates that forestation/tree-planting projects are irrelevant or undesirable generally; and the title specifically has this insinuation. But that's not the case - and even the article concedes that such projects can and do succeed often and when done right.