4 ms·

Tree <> Tree Meaning: a 4 year old tree in the Amazon is not equivalent to a 100 year old tree in the Amazon. We might have more trees, but I doubt we have th

Tree <> Tree Meaning: a 4 year old tree in the Amazon is not equivalent to a 100 year old tree in the Amazon. We might have more trees, but I doubt we have the same CO2 recycling capacity that we had 35 years ago.

jploh 4y ago
Someone advocating direct air carbon capture made this strong argument that stuck with me: Carbon released by drilling oil didn't come from trees. So recapturing the carbon from what we think was released from trees burned down before does not include carbon stored underground.
oasisbob 4y ago
The writer is clearly conflating canopy coverage area with individual trees.
- tooltower 4y ago
  What would be a better measure? Tons of carbon locked up in the wood? The amount of carbon they can remove from the atmosphere on an average day?
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    yes, and yes.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      How would you measure this with accuracy and cost efficiency? Is canopy reasonable enough after a certain percent increase (say, 5% increase)? We are talking about percentages of the Earth's dry land, so nontrivial certainly.
      - pvaldes 4y ago
        > How would you measure this with accuracy and cost efficiency? Does not seem like an impossible task, I see two preliminary ways at least to attack the problem, but probably both will be wrong and is not my job to measure this without resources in any case
        tomrod 4y ago
        > not my job to measure this without resources in any case Ah, I misunderstood. I thought perhaps you had some insight here based on your insistence that canopy is a bad metric. So canopy is definitely measurable at low-ish cost via satellite monitoring. I would presume it wouldn't be hard to add reasonable time-series based assumptions on new growth and make calibration adjustments that take into account the evolution. Going into a forest and sampling, everywhere, is going to be cost inefficient relative to a model that can be based on canopy and calibrated on sub-samples of forest sampling, both historical and recent expeditions. At least, that's how folks who would do this kind of job would likely approach it, based on my experience in similar domains. When it comes to funding, academia is a brutal place where resources are slim. Obvious adjustments are the next-best low hanging fruit to original development -- so a direct canopy measure would next likely be iterated to account for new-ness of forest and carbon sequestration calibration.
  - oasisbob 4y ago
    Canopy coverage is a fine measure. It's equating the number of trees with canopy cover with carbon sequestration which is at issue. The original study isn't what I'm commenting on. eg, Younger forests are not as productive as older forests when it comes to carbon sequestration.
- skitter 4y ago
  Though I don't think looking at e.g. Pando and adding one to your count is particularly useful in this context.
Kaibeezy 4y ago
Maybe they applied the principle of: little trees, fresh as a breeze. Maybe not.
jandrese 4y ago
In theory younger trees should consume more CO2 as they are still growing. Older trees that are maintaining a steady state should consume a net of almost 0 CO2.
- spiderfarmer 4y ago
  Exactly. That’s why sustainable forestry is a great way to capture both CO2 and building materials, which will store the carbon for decades.
- Scarblac 4y ago
  But the 100 year old tree that was removed (and everything growing on it and in the soil near it) added a lot of CO2 to the air, and it's unlikely that was grows back now will be as rich in biodiversity and CO2 binding capacity than the old one.
  - NAHWheatCracker 4y ago
    Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the carbon is in the 100 year old tree and when it's cut down and turned into something it's still there. So that carbon is sitting the walls of a house, furniture, or sheafs of paper, isn't it? Disregarding cutting the tree down to just burn it for heat, obviously.
    - Scarblac 4y ago
      Yes, if it's in a house or furniture it will be safe for a while longer.
- GenerocUsername 4y ago
  Many trees grow continuously until they literally kill themselves with unsustainable weight. Big trees likely add more biomass per year than young trees
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    I would expect plants to genetically encode growth limits, because a mature tree that continues to stand and produce seed will reproduce more than one that falls over prematurely because it never stopped growing. Does any life form on Earth grow indefinitely?
Y-bar 4y ago
Yes. And I’m willing to bet that biodiversity is not so good in many of these “forests” which should probably be called something like “plantation”.
dexwiz 4y ago
Trees are overhyped when it comes to CO2 capture/recycling. Algae already outproduces trees globally by 2x. It is also much easier to industrialize. For example, algae ponds could be built alongside fossil fuel plants to capture carbon on site. Oil is predominately captured algae that died, sank to the bottom of the ocean, and was sealed in by salt deposits/other nonpermeable layers. Coal is carbon captured by trees, but it only formed in a relatively narrow period after cellulose evolved but before bacteria/fungus evolved to eat it. Oil will continue to form, but it's unlikely any new coal will form in the future. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034

jploh 4y ago

Someone advocating direct air carbon capture made this strong argument that stuck with me: Carbon released by drilling oil didn't come from trees. So recapturing the carbon from what we think was released from trees burned down before does not include carbon stored underground.

oasisbob 4y ago

The writer is clearly conflating canopy coverage area with individual trees.

tooltower 4y ago
What would be a better measure? Tons of carbon locked up in the wood? The amount of carbon they can remove from the atmosphere on an average day?
- pvaldes 4y ago
  yes, and yes.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    How would you measure this with accuracy and cost efficiency? Is canopy reasonable enough after a certain percent increase (say, 5% increase)? We are talking about percentages of the Earth's dry land, so nontrivial certainly.
    - pvaldes 4y ago
      > How would you measure this with accuracy and cost efficiency? Does not seem like an impossible task, I see two preliminary ways at least to attack the problem, but probably both will be wrong and is not my job to measure this without resources in any case
      - tomrod 4y ago
        > not my job to measure this without resources in any case Ah, I misunderstood. I thought perhaps you had some insight here based on your insistence that canopy is a bad metric. So canopy is definitely measurable at low-ish cost via satellite monitoring. I would presume it wouldn't be hard to add reasonable time-series based assumptions on new growth and make calibration adjustments that take into account the evolution. Going into a forest and sampling, everywhere, is going to be cost inefficient relative to a model that can be based on canopy and calibrated on sub-samples of forest sampling, both historical and recent expeditions. At least, that's how folks who would do this kind of job would likely approach it, based on my experience in similar domains. When it comes to funding, academia is a brutal place where resources are slim. Obvious adjustments are the next-best low hanging fruit to original development -- so a direct canopy measure would next likely be iterated to account for new-ness of forest and carbon sequestration calibration.
- oasisbob 4y ago
  Canopy coverage is a fine measure. It's equating the number of trees with canopy cover with carbon sequestration which is at issue. The original study isn't what I'm commenting on. eg, Younger forests are not as productive as older forests when it comes to carbon sequestration.
skitter 4y ago
Though I don't think looking at e.g. Pando and adding one to your count is particularly useful in this context.

Kaibeezy 4y ago

Maybe they applied the principle of: little trees, fresh as a breeze. Maybe not.

jandrese 4y ago

In theory younger trees should consume more CO2 as they are still growing. Older trees that are maintaining a steady state should consume a net of almost 0 CO2.

spiderfarmer 4y ago
Exactly. That’s why sustainable forestry is a great way to capture both CO2 and building materials, which will store the carbon for decades.
Scarblac 4y ago
But the 100 year old tree that was removed (and everything growing on it and in the soil near it) added a lot of CO2 to the air, and it's unlikely that was grows back now will be as rich in biodiversity and CO2 binding capacity than the old one.
- NAHWheatCracker 4y ago
  Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the carbon is in the 100 year old tree and when it's cut down and turned into something it's still there. So that carbon is sitting the walls of a house, furniture, or sheafs of paper, isn't it? Disregarding cutting the tree down to just burn it for heat, obviously.
  - Scarblac 4y ago
    Yes, if it's in a house or furniture it will be safe for a while longer.
GenerocUsername 4y ago
Many trees grow continuously until they literally kill themselves with unsustainable weight. Big trees likely add more biomass per year than young trees
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  I would expect plants to genetically encode growth limits, because a mature tree that continues to stand and produce seed will reproduce more than one that falls over prematurely because it never stopped growing. Does any life form on Earth grow indefinitely?

Y-bar 4y ago

Yes. And I’m willing to bet that biodiversity is not so good in many of these “forests” which should probably be called something like “plantation”.

dexwiz 4y ago

Trees are overhyped when it comes to CO2 capture/recycling. Algae already outproduces trees globally by 2x. It is also much easier to industrialize. For example, algae ponds could be built alongside fossil fuel plants to capture carbon on site. Oil is predominately captured algae that died, sank to the bottom of the ocean, and was sealed in by salt deposits/other nonpermeable layers. Coal is carbon captured by trees, but it only formed in a relatively narrow period after cellulose evolved but before bacteria/fungus evolved to eat it. Oil will continue to form, but it's unlikely any new coal will form in the future. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034