4 ms·

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

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.
    - robocat 5y ago
      The article is saying that the obvious idea of planting some trees is not the panacea that one might naively think it is. As a consumer, it is hard to even know where to start on that. I was responding to your point “But we need to stop releasing greenhouse gases now”. i agree. Any links to well thought out resources that actually properly estimate the greenhouse gas impact of my choices? I would expect international holidays and buying petrol to be obvious poor choices, but I really struggle to guess what are true low impact choices, because there is so much misinformation out there and everything has an impact. > And maybe the easiest way to do as little damage as possible is to not spend so much money So you invest it instead, and those investments create CO2. Perhaps the right way is to actively put money into CO2 reduction investments - but even that is difficult due to greenwashing misdirection. Is an investment in a tree planting a net benefit? The article says don’t be so sure. An investment in Nikola would have surely been a serious mistake for the environment. It is not clear that Tesla is currently a net benefit to the planet.
      - Ma8ee 5y ago
        You are putting in much more effort in finding excuses to not having to do your part than trying to learn what you need to do. Most things aren’t particularly complicated. The possibility of sometimes making mistakes is no excuse for inaction.
        robocat 5y ago
        Please don’t assume what I do or don’t do - I think that most people would find that rude. I am asking the questions because it is a minefield of misinformation, and you seem to have some strong opinions about it: maybe I can learn something from you. I see a lot of virtue signalling: doing the recycling, avoiding plastic bags, and perhaps getting an electric car. AFAIK all three of those can easily be worse for the environment, depending on exact behaviour and context. The article is surprising, but it won’t stop me planting trees. Anyways, I hope you enjoy your day/night, wherever you happen to be.
        5y ago

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.
  - robocat 5y ago
    The article is saying that the obvious idea of planting some trees is not the panacea that one might naively think it is. As a consumer, it is hard to even know where to start on that. I was responding to your point “But we need to stop releasing greenhouse gases now”. i agree. Any links to well thought out resources that actually properly estimate the greenhouse gas impact of my choices? I would expect international holidays and buying petrol to be obvious poor choices, but I really struggle to guess what are true low impact choices, because there is so much misinformation out there and everything has an impact. > And maybe the easiest way to do as little damage as possible is to not spend so much money So you invest it instead, and those investments create CO2. Perhaps the right way is to actively put money into CO2 reduction investments - but even that is difficult due to greenwashing misdirection. Is an investment in a tree planting a net benefit? The article says don’t be so sure. An investment in Nikola would have surely been a serious mistake for the environment. It is not clear that Tesla is currently a net benefit to the planet.
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      You are putting in much more effort in finding excuses to not having to do your part than trying to learn what you need to do. Most things aren’t particularly complicated. The possibility of sometimes making mistakes is no excuse for inaction.
      - robocat 5y ago
        Please don’t assume what I do or don’t do - I think that most people would find that rude. I am asking the questions because it is a minefield of misinformation, and you seem to have some strong opinions about it: maybe I can learn something from you. I see a lot of virtue signalling: doing the recycling, avoiding plastic bags, and perhaps getting an electric car. AFAIK all three of those can easily be worse for the environment, depending on exact behaviour and context. The article is surprising, but it won’t stop me planting trees. Anyways, I hope you enjoy your day/night, wherever you happen to be.
        5y ago