5 ms·

Wouldn't just planting trees be way more economical and effective? Why isn't the government subsidizing planting trees as they are these pipelines? How many tr

Wouldn't just planting trees be way more economical and effective? Why isn't the government subsidizing planting trees as they are these pipelines? How many trees do they have to cut down to run these pipelines is probably a question someone should also be asking...

mistrial9 3y ago
unfortunately, in many places in the world, what kinds of trees and how they thrive is changing very quickly.. rain, heat and fire patterns are all changing now.. I personally support planting trees in most cases, but don't be surprised when the skeptics have some detailed rebuttals..
lazide 3y ago
Trees release their carbon when they die, and they all die relatively quickly on the scales we’re talking about. If harvested and used in long lived construction, it can be longer term, but inevitably it still gets released. Think carbon capacitor, not carbon sink.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  there are extensive chapters written on this topic in IPCC publications, and in the US Climate documents, and in California Climate documents. What you say is partly true, but conveniently omits large other factors at the same time.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Such as? Unless the tree gets subducted or interred (aka turned to Coal or similar), it’s still part of the cycle, and its carbon will still eventually return to the atmosphere. And with the evolution of lignin eating fungi (white rot fungi being particularly efficient) many millions of years ago, good luck with that. Capacitors are useful, but they aren’t sinks.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      ok, so far.. there appear to be at least two angles.. One is the factual measure of the role of carbon in various forests over time; the second is as a target for collective action. Deforestation and forest fire are certainly significant sources of carbon emissions. Not all carbon goes into the atmosphere, however. Given current conditions and human practices, acting now to prevent deforestation and catastrophic forest fire are significant in themselves. Forests and managed forests are an important source of food and trade goods for humans worldwide. Mangrove forests are a topic in themselves. In IPCC_SRCCL_2019/IPCC_SRCCL_05_Chapter-2: Global models and national GHG inventories use different methods to estimate anthropogenic CO2 emissions and removals for the land sector. Consideration of differences in methods can enhance understanding of land sector net emission such as under the Paris Agreement’s global stocktake (medium confidence). Both models and inventories produce estimates that are in close agreement for land-use change involving forest (e.g., deforestation, afforestation), and differ for managed forest. ... The gross emissions from AFOLU (one-third of total global emissions) are more indicative of mitigation potential of reduced deforestation than the global net emissions (13% of total global emissions), which include compensating deforestation and afforestation fluxes (high confidence). The net flux of CO2 from AFOLU is composed of two opposing gross fluxes: (i) gross emissions (20 GtCO2 yr–1) from deforestation, cultivation of soils and oxidation of wood products, and (ii) gross removals (–14 GtCO2 yr–1), largely from forest growth following wood harvest and agricultural abandonment (medium confidence). {2.3.1} Land is a net source of CH4 ... emissions for the 2006–2017 period (medium confidence). The pause in the rise of atmospheric CH4 concentrations between 2000 and 2006 and the subsequent renewed increase appear to be partially associated with land use and land use change. The recent depletion trend of the 13C isotope in the atmosphere indicates that higher biogenic sources explain part of the current CH4 increase and that biogenic sources make up a larger proportion of the source mix than they did before 2000 (high confidence). -- "Terrestrial greenhouse gas fluxes on unmanaged and managed lands Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) is a significant net source of GHG emissions (high confidence), contributing to about 23% of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) combined as CO2 equivalents in 2007–2016 (medium confidence). AFOLU results in both emissions and removals of CO2, CH4 and N2O to and from the atmosphere (high confidence). These fluxes are affected simultaneously by natural and human drivers, making it difficult to separate natural from anthropogenic fluxes (very high confidence). {2.3} The total net land-atmosphere flux of CO2 on both managed and unmanaged lands very likely provided a global net removal from 2007 to 2016 according to models (-6.0 ± 3.7 GtCO2 yr–1)"
smt88 3y ago
Planting trees is a terrible way to mitigate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere[1]. There are many problems (most of which are covered in that article), and they include: - mature forests are generally carbon-neutral and can also sometimes become carbon emitters, depending on specific circumstances - young forests sequester carbon more quickly, but the trees just aren't that big and the amount of carbon sequestered is trivial - as trees die, they release much of the captured carbon back into the atmosphere as they decay - planting new forests is much more expensive (in terms of time, energy, and money) than just sequestering carbon when it's produced or, better yet, not using fossil fuels as much as we have in the past 1. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-trees https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-t...
- credit_guy 3y ago
  I think you are mistaken. Mature forests are not carbon-neutral. In the US the forests absorb about 12% of the greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Can this number go to 20%, for example? I think so. A trivial legislative change would be to stop the subsidies for ethanol, and to offer them instead to plant forests on the acreage currently used for its feedstock corn. That would be about 30 million acres. At a reasonable 15 tons of CO2 absorbed per year, that would be 450 megatons CO2 per year, or about 7% of the US emissions, so that would bring us to 19%. But more is possible. Can we reach a point where the trees absorb 100% of the emissions (without reducing the emissions)? I don't think so. And I think it's wrong to attempt that. But trees can have a very meaningful impact, we should not dismiss them so cavalierly. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

mistrial9 3y ago

unfortunately, in many places in the world, what kinds of trees and how they thrive is changing very quickly.. rain, heat and fire patterns are all changing now.. I personally support planting trees in most cases, but don't be surprised when the skeptics have some detailed rebuttals..

lazide 3y ago

Trees release their carbon when they die, and they all die relatively quickly on the scales we’re talking about. If harvested and used in long lived construction, it can be longer term, but inevitably it still gets released. Think carbon capacitor, not carbon sink.

mistrial9 3y ago
there are extensive chapters written on this topic in IPCC publications, and in the US Climate documents, and in California Climate documents. What you say is partly true, but conveniently omits large other factors at the same time.
- lazide 3y ago
  Such as? Unless the tree gets subducted or interred (aka turned to Coal or similar), it’s still part of the cycle, and its carbon will still eventually return to the atmosphere. And with the evolution of lignin eating fungi (white rot fungi being particularly efficient) many millions of years ago, good luck with that. Capacitors are useful, but they aren’t sinks.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    ok, so far.. there appear to be at least two angles.. One is the factual measure of the role of carbon in various forests over time; the second is as a target for collective action. Deforestation and forest fire are certainly significant sources of carbon emissions. Not all carbon goes into the atmosphere, however. Given current conditions and human practices, acting now to prevent deforestation and catastrophic forest fire are significant in themselves. Forests and managed forests are an important source of food and trade goods for humans worldwide. Mangrove forests are a topic in themselves. In IPCC_SRCCL_2019/IPCC_SRCCL_05_Chapter-2: Global models and national GHG inventories use different methods to estimate anthropogenic CO2 emissions and removals for the land sector. Consideration of differences in methods can enhance understanding of land sector net emission such as under the Paris Agreement’s global stocktake (medium confidence). Both models and inventories produce estimates that are in close agreement for land-use change involving forest (e.g., deforestation, afforestation), and differ for managed forest. ... The gross emissions from AFOLU (one-third of total global emissions) are more indicative of mitigation potential of reduced deforestation than the global net emissions (13% of total global emissions), which include compensating deforestation and afforestation fluxes (high confidence). The net flux of CO2 from AFOLU is composed of two opposing gross fluxes: (i) gross emissions (20 GtCO2 yr–1) from deforestation, cultivation of soils and oxidation of wood products, and (ii) gross removals (–14 GtCO2 yr–1), largely from forest growth following wood harvest and agricultural abandonment (medium confidence). {2.3.1} Land is a net source of CH4 ... emissions for the 2006–2017 period (medium confidence). The pause in the rise of atmospheric CH4 concentrations between 2000 and 2006 and the subsequent renewed increase appear to be partially associated with land use and land use change. The recent depletion trend of the 13C isotope in the atmosphere indicates that higher biogenic sources explain part of the current CH4 increase and that biogenic sources make up a larger proportion of the source mix than they did before 2000 (high confidence). -- "Terrestrial greenhouse gas fluxes on unmanaged and managed lands Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) is a significant net source of GHG emissions (high confidence), contributing to about 23% of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) combined as CO2 equivalents in 2007–2016 (medium confidence). AFOLU results in both emissions and removals of CO2, CH4 and N2O to and from the atmosphere (high confidence). These fluxes are affected simultaneously by natural and human drivers, making it difficult to separate natural from anthropogenic fluxes (very high confidence). {2.3} The total net land-atmosphere flux of CO2 on both managed and unmanaged lands very likely provided a global net removal from 2007 to 2016 according to models (-6.0 ± 3.7 GtCO2 yr–1)"

smt88 3y ago

Planting trees is a terrible way to mitigate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere[1]. There are many problems (most of which are covered in that article), and they include: - mature forests are generally carbon-neutral and can also sometimes become carbon emitters, depending on specific circumstances - young forests sequester carbon more quickly, but the trees just aren't that big and the amount of carbon sequestered is trivial - as trees die, they release much of the captured carbon back into the atmosphere as they decay - planting new forests is much more expensive (in terms of time, energy, and money) than just sequestering carbon when it's produced or, better yet, not using fossil fuels as much as we have in the past 1. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-trees https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-t...

credit_guy 3y ago
I think you are mistaken. Mature forests are not carbon-neutral. In the US the forests absorb about 12% of the greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Can this number go to 20%, for example? I think so. A trivial legislative change would be to stop the subsidies for ethanol, and to offer them instead to plant forests on the acreage currently used for its feedstock corn. That would be about 30 million acres. At a reasonable 15 tons of CO2 absorbed per year, that would be 450 megatons CO2 per year, or about 7% of the US emissions, so that would bring us to 19%. But more is possible. Can we reach a point where the trees absorb 100% of the emissions (without reducing the emissions)? I don't think so. And I think it's wrong to attempt that. But trees can have a very meaningful impact, we should not dismiss them so cavalierly. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...