5 ms·
Two concerns, if anyone can answer: 1. Does it look like the production process can scale big enough? 2. Would that mean even more incentive to chop down tree
by gtsop 5y ago
Two concerns, if anyone can answer:
1. Does it look like the production process can scale big enough?
2. Would that mean even more incentive to chop down trees?
- ummonk 5y agoThe answer to question 1 for these sorts of articles is nearly always "no".
- dataflow 5y ago> 2. Would that mean even more incentive to chop down trees? That might actually be a good thing - trees absorb carbon, which we need to do, quickly. We just need to make sure to plant new ones in their place.
- gtsop 5y agoIs that a sustainable practice you think? Just asking
- dataflow 5y agoOffhand, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be. What makes you think it might not be possible to do this sustainably?
- gtsop 5y agoThe rate at which new trees grow. The ratio of carbon absorbed by a mature tree over the carbon another new tree (or trees) can absorb occupyig the same space on the ground
- dataflow 5y agoEarth has so much land that you could plant trees in though?
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoIt really doesn't, most suitable land is used for farming already (sahara and siberian are not suitable) Thats why specieces are dissapearing, because they have nowhere to live It is literally impossible to plant enough trees to stop climate change.
- dataflow 5y agoYou're misunderstanding what I wrote. What I claimed was: (a) There is (at present) sufficient land for us to be able to sustainably plant enough trees to supply our need for such composites (including to the extent that they may substitute for our consumption of plastics), and (b) Planting trees as part of this practice would likely be (non-trivially) beneficial in the fight climate change. I did not claim that: (c) Planting trees would somehow be sufficient to single-handedly solve climate change without us having to change any other of our current practices (like farming), or (d) The planet would always have room for sufficient trees (for any purpose) regardless of how long current trends continue or how badly we continue to destroy more and more of the environment.
- gtsop 5y ago@dataflow but then you are dipping into the issue of artificially modyfing biomes. Putting forests where they didn't exist before, again, i don't know, but i would assume this could alter the local ecosystem and it should be done with care. Not just make the whole planet a forest. That's why i was concerned with using the same space.
- dataflow 5y agoI don't think you need to make the whole planet a forest for this to be feasible. Yes we use a lot of carbon, but not THAT much carbon. It would mess with some ecosystems (obviously), which is not ideal, but it wouldn't be that drastic of an alteration to the planet as a whole. Also, the claim wasn't that this is perfect. Just that it's be (much) better than what we're doing currently.
- vbezhenar 5y agoWhat's wrong with making planet a forest? Right now we're shaping a planet into a concrete plain. I'd prefer forest any day.
- gtsop 5y agoI just said it should be done with care
- mcv 5y agoA lot of the planet used to be forested that currently isn't. Many ecosystems have already been changed by removing forests, among other things. We can plant a lot of trees before we reach the point that we need to plant forests where none have been before. And some ecosystems definitely could be improved by planting forests. They can halt desertification, for example.
- euroderf 5y agoWe have to keep the carbon sequestered in the harvested wood. I suggest fleets of oceangoing megarafts, in preparation for the Waterworld apocalypse.
- chrisco255 5y agoWe have been sustainably farming trees for over 100 years.
- soperj 5y agoTree farming is probably one of the biggest issues in the pacific northwest today. They spray Glyphosate (round up) after every forest fire to prevent Aspen from growing (a natural firebreak), and then they plant GMO pine monocultures. This + pine beetle + putting out any small forest fires, lead to massive fuel build ups, which leads to massive forest fires (and subsequent flooding in the winter). It's definitely not sustainable.
- dataflow 5y agoNote that "is possible to do sustainably" and "is possible to do unsustainably" are not mutually exclusive.
- thfuran 5y agoNote that the claim actually being addressed was that we've been doing it sustainably, not merely that we could of we wanted to.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoWe have been doing it sustainably for hundreds of years. We've also been doing it unsustainably for a while, too. Different things happen in different places.
- mellavora 5y agohmmm, lifespan of a tree is several hundred years. How long does it take to know if the farm is sustainable?
- regularfry 5y agoLifespan of some trees is several hundred years. You can go through pine generations much, much quicker (and people have, for hundreds of years).