5 ms·

Planting trees “doesn't make any sense” in the fight against climate change

23 points by holonomically 5y ago

anm89 5y ago
Nobody ever thought that it did or cared if it did. It was a convenient marketing gimmick.
- holonomically 5y ago
  Plenty of people thought it would work. It feels like the right thing to do so people assume that because it feels right then it must be the right answer but the global output of CO2 is 51 gigatons / year and increasing. Any approach that makes a dent in that number is going to require more than just planting trees.
goatsneez 5y ago
That is a wrong statement, and it is deadly to have such a thorough misunderstanding of the climate stability issue. This is a result of the fact that climate change as the western world conceived it for its geo-political goals is (purposefully and) embarrassingly lacking scientific rigor of which direction the information flows regarding the biotic regulation of the clima system. In other words the adopted framework of understanding the issue that just about everyone vocal (or given voice) in the media adopts is wrong (just go to scopus and search for role of forests). That leads to these these types of silly statements in marketing articles, often presented as some profound truths. For those not in the field, Im not challenging the estimates on the CO2 sequestration by trees, that can be done in 5 minutes with elementary school math. Rather, its the lack of pointing out that forests drive the hydrological cycle over land, regulate mesoscale (and in some cases continental) climates, and provide biological functions on the scale that no technology can replace (and never will in fact, there are calculation about that too). The exact opposite is the right message here, we have to learn how to manage and create fully functional forests and cover as much land as we can (given other constraints). At the same time, yes, planting trees randomly without thought is not going to do any good either (and may cause harm as mentioned in the article in offhand manner). We should stop looking at the world as a dumpster (of CO2), thinking that reducing CO2 or regulating its concentration in isolation to the driving forces is somehow panacea for life stability on earth. The biosphere (microbiological of cause) is the climate regulator, and hydrological cycles (and water as an elements) is far more important than secondary role of CO2 as a radiative feedback (first is its role as food for plants, without which there is no life at all). Too low CO2 leads to death of life on this planet. The issue of climate change are not absolute scales, but gradients ... which we hopefully will find a way to understand and help our unique and irreplaceable microbiosphere to manage.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Vvector 5y ago
From the article: "You plant the forest but you don't start seeing carbon retention and sequestration happening for at least 10 years after they're planted, so there's a long lag time in doing that" Maybe we should have planted those trees 10 years ago? And 10-20 years from now, will we be wondering why we didn't plant more trees now?
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  At this point we have to do everything, including preserve all forests and planting a lot of trees. The problem with the promise of sequestration through forests is that many people think that they can use trees to offset continued release of greenhouse gases. “I’ll take that flight to Hawaii but I’ll plant some trees so it evens out.” But we need to stop releasing greenhouse gases now, and those trees might sequester the corresponding amount of carbon in 60 years. And that is only as long as the forest doesn’t burn (as fuel or unintentionally) during those decades.
  - robocat 5y ago
    > I’ll take that flight to Hawaii So you don’t take the flight. Instead you have great steak restaurant experiences. Uh oh: methane. So instead you buy a eco-friendly home: uh oh - the building costs were high and you have indirectly caused petrochemical usage. As a well paid developer, it is very very difficult to decide where to spend money so it reduces damage. Carbon footprint is very highly correlated with income!
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      What’s your point? Of course it’s impossible to reduce our footprints to absolute zero, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t reduce them. And that there are certain situations where it’s it hard to make correct judgements doesn’t mean that most aren’t quite easy. We can’t afford flying over half the world just for pleasure and entertainment. We can’t eat steak or hamburgers every day. And maybe the easiest way to do as little damage as possible is to not spend so much money, even when you have them.
wanderr 5y ago
Anything that doesn’t put carbon deep underground is a temporary solution at best. Most of that carbon is destined for the atmosphere.
aaron695 5y ago
[dead]
h0neybaj 5y ago
Man who makes money replacing trees thinks trees are ineffective… big surprise there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mif 5y ago
If cutting down forests results in higher CO2 emissions why shouldn’t planting forests reverse it? It is thought to reverse the effect of deforestation and naturally, it is a slow process.
akomtu 5y ago
My hunch is that it won't be trees that will save the planet, but a special co2-hungry strain of fungi.
testrun 5y ago
The comment section on this article is very interesting. Seems a few people have a problem with the conclusion of the author.
- devaboone 5y ago
  For example, the comment from Paul Gambill, the CEO of Nori who is quoted extensively in the article. He wrote in to clarify that he does not agree with the title and that he does in fact think that afforestation is necessary.
  - popcube 5y ago
    so this article bending the original meaning of that person...
mk81 5y ago
Let's be fair, it makes a bit more sense that every city and municipality declaring a "climate emergency" like there's anything they can do about it.
berikv 5y ago
> "So you plant your saplings and then you have to maintain the forest for 100 years. That's multiple generations of people. How many companies last 100 years these days? How on earth is anyone going to afford to maintain that forest, hiring the team of people you need to do that? It doesn't make any sense." Forests don’t make any sense, who’s willing to pay for them anyway? Could this be even more capitalist propaganda?
popcube 5y ago
TL;TR: if someone want to plant please get help from local biologist or other professional people. and don't let big companies use planting forest as the only way to compensate their carbon emission, because it work too slowly.
suvo 5y ago
Isn't algae better at that! Why isn't anybody looking that direction?
- dustymcp 5y ago
  Yes stopping fishing especially trawling boats would do alot as well, they release alot of CO2 from the seafloor.

23 points by holonomically 5y ago

anm89 5y ago

Nobody ever thought that it did or cared if it did. It was a convenient marketing gimmick.

holonomically 5y ago
Plenty of people thought it would work. It feels like the right thing to do so people assume that because it feels right then it must be the right answer but the global output of CO2 is 51 gigatons / year and increasing. Any approach that makes a dent in that number is going to require more than just planting trees.

goatsneez 5y ago

That is a wrong statement, and it is deadly to have such a thorough misunderstanding of the climate stability issue. This is a result of the fact that climate change as the western world conceived it for its geo-political goals is (purposefully and) embarrassingly lacking scientific rigor of which direction the information flows regarding the biotic regulation of the clima system. In other words the adopted framework of understanding the issue that just about everyone vocal (or given voice) in the media adopts is wrong (just go to scopus and search for role of forests). That leads to these these types of silly statements in marketing articles, often presented as some profound truths. For those not in the field, Im not challenging the estimates on the CO2 sequestration by trees, that can be done in 5 minutes with elementary school math. Rather, its the lack of pointing out that forests drive the hydrological cycle over land, regulate mesoscale (and in some cases continental) climates, and provide biological functions on the scale that no technology can replace (and never will in fact, there are calculation about that too). The exact opposite is the right message here, we have to learn how to manage and create fully functional forests and cover as much land as we can (given other constraints). At the same time, yes, planting trees randomly without thought is not going to do any good either (and may cause harm as mentioned in the article in offhand manner). We should stop looking at the world as a dumpster (of CO2), thinking that reducing CO2 or regulating its concentration in isolation to the driving forces is somehow panacea for life stability on earth. The biosphere (microbiological of cause) is the climate regulator, and hydrological cycles (and water as an elements) is far more important than secondary role of CO2 as a radiative feedback (first is its role as food for plants, without which there is no life at all). Too low CO2 leads to death of life on this planet. The issue of climate change are not absolute scales, but gradients ... which we hopefully will find a way to understand and help our unique and irreplaceable microbiosphere to manage.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Vvector 5y ago

From the article: "You plant the forest but you don't start seeing carbon retention and sequestration happening for at least 10 years after they're planted, so there's a long lag time in doing that" Maybe we should have planted those trees 10 years ago? And 10-20 years from now, will we be wondering why we didn't plant more trees now?

Ma8ee 5y ago
At this point we have to do everything, including preserve all forests and planting a lot of trees. The problem with the promise of sequestration through forests is that many people think that they can use trees to offset continued release of greenhouse gases. “I’ll take that flight to Hawaii but I’ll plant some trees so it evens out.” But we need to stop releasing greenhouse gases now, and those trees might sequester the corresponding amount of carbon in 60 years. And that is only as long as the forest doesn’t burn (as fuel or unintentionally) during those decades.
- robocat 5y ago
  > I’ll take that flight to Hawaii So you don’t take the flight. Instead you have great steak restaurant experiences. Uh oh: methane. So instead you buy a eco-friendly home: uh oh - the building costs were high and you have indirectly caused petrochemical usage. As a well paid developer, it is very very difficult to decide where to spend money so it reduces damage. Carbon footprint is very highly correlated with income!
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    What’s your point? Of course it’s impossible to reduce our footprints to absolute zero, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t reduce them. And that there are certain situations where it’s it hard to make correct judgements doesn’t mean that most aren’t quite easy. We can’t afford flying over half the world just for pleasure and entertainment. We can’t eat steak or hamburgers every day. And maybe the easiest way to do as little damage as possible is to not spend so much money, even when you have them.

wanderr 5y ago

Anything that doesn’t put carbon deep underground is a temporary solution at best. Most of that carbon is destined for the atmosphere.

aaron695 5y ago

[dead]

h0neybaj 5y ago

Man who makes money replacing trees thinks trees are ineffective… big surprise there.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mif 5y ago

If cutting down forests results in higher CO2 emissions why shouldn’t planting forests reverse it? It is thought to reverse the effect of deforestation and naturally, it is a slow process.

akomtu 5y ago

My hunch is that it won't be trees that will save the planet, but a special co2-hungry strain of fungi.

testrun 5y ago

The comment section on this article is very interesting. Seems a few people have a problem with the conclusion of the author.

devaboone 5y ago
For example, the comment from Paul Gambill, the CEO of Nori who is quoted extensively in the article. He wrote in to clarify that he does not agree with the title and that he does in fact think that afforestation is necessary.
- popcube 5y ago
  so this article bending the original meaning of that person...

mk81 5y ago

Let's be fair, it makes a bit more sense that every city and municipality declaring a "climate emergency" like there's anything they can do about it.

berikv 5y ago

> "So you plant your saplings and then you have to maintain the forest for 100 years. That's multiple generations of people. How many companies last 100 years these days? How on earth is anyone going to afford to maintain that forest, hiring the team of people you need to do that? It doesn't make any sense." Forests don’t make any sense, who’s willing to pay for them anyway? Could this be even more capitalist propaganda?

popcube 5y ago

TL;TR: if someone want to plant please get help from local biologist or other professional people. and don't let big companies use planting forest as the only way to compensate their carbon emission, because it work too slowly.

suvo 5y ago

Isn't algae better at that! Why isn't anybody looking that direction?

dustymcp 5y ago
Yes stopping fishing especially trawling boats would do alot as well, they release alot of CO2 from the seafloor.