4 ms·

That seems impossible. It would require every US citizen to plant 2500 trees. There’s not enough space, nor time. Oh, look. It’s ben studied, and the answer is

by tgv 3y ago

That seems impossible. It would require every US citizen to plant 2500 trees. There’s not enough space, nor time. Oh, look. It’s ben studied, and the answer is “it won’t work”: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-...

JimtheCoder 3y ago
Tree planting machines are a thing...
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  I don't think there's enough space in the US to plant a trillion trees.
  - JimtheCoder 3y ago
    Two words - Bonsai Trees...
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    ”Planting one trillion trees would also require a massive amount of space — roughly the size of the continental United States.“
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      TIL, area on Earth = area of the continental United States
      - tgv 3y ago
        It's a proposal to compensate for the US' CO2, so it should be doable on their own territory.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Actually, there is! I according to the article all we have to do is move the entire US population to megacities on Hawaii, and leave the rest of the country as forest. Although that might be to get to a trillion trees total, not add a trillion. It's unclear.
chomp 3y ago
It’s a ludicrous proposal, requiring these trees to be planted in other nations. And nothing to say of the logistics of keeping 1 trillion trees alive long enough to maturity. Or even to just produce the saplings and ship them. If you do the math on just raising a trillion saplings, it’s mind boggling.
- tzs 3y ago
  > It’s a ludicrous proposal, requiring these trees to be planted in other nations. Doesn't everything to address climate change require things to be done in other countries?
  - chomp 3y ago
    True, I didn’t mean working with other nations is ludicrous, only that the largest countries by area that could host these trees are the US, China, and Russia, and we’re not best friends right now. You’d have to pick a lot of smaller area countries to cooperate and when you bring in the logistics, it goes out of control.
  - tgv 3y ago
    Not to compensate for the US' own CO2 production.
- beej71 3y ago
  The math on the saplings is easy. Grow 10,000 before the next election, then grow the rest right after that. :)
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
It is a global proposal. https://www.science.org/content/article/adding-1-billion-hectares-forest-could-help-check-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/adding-1-billion-hec... > Oh, look. It’s ben studied, and the answer is “it won’t work”: No, it hasn't. That is just one guy's analysis.
- tgv 3y ago
  > No, it hasn't. That is just one guy's analysis. Your article doesn't even attempt an in-depth analysis. It just counts the area required. From that article: > Those added trees could sequester 205 gigatons of carbon in the coming decades, roughly five times the amount emitted globally in 2018. So that's enough for 5 years. And after that? Plant another trillion? That article says there's only space for 0.9T, period.
beej71 3y ago
I didn't do the math on the area (actually I did and it looked plausible, but I'm super jetlagged rn and really don't trust my work :-D ), but there is an awful lot of space in the western US. And trees can be mechanically planted at rates of up to 5000 per hour "at a well-prepared site".[1] Sadly, the US is becoming increasingly intolerable to trees and forests are dying off. [1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/seedlings/planting/mechplan.htm https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/seedlings/planting/mechplan.htm
- tgv 3y ago
  It's pretty hard to believe a machine can do 5000 per hour. Trees need to be well spaced, but ok. 5000 trees per hour, that's 200M hours or 23000 years. So: build 2000 machines and achieve it in 11 years? Well, there's no factory to build 2000 such machines. It would also require an enormous supply chain, since these machines are going to work over an area of roughly 3000x5000 km. And: it says "a well prepared site". That means leveling the whole of the US. You cannot do that in 10 years, not even in 100. Large parts of the US are unsuitable for planting. Other large parts are already forested: you'd have to remove billions of existing trees to plant 1 trillion. It's sheer lunacy, only to avoid upsetting the Republicans' wealthy friends. Note that I didn't mention fraud and bribery.

by tgv 3y ago

JimtheCoder 3y ago

Tree planting machines are a thing...

xboxnolifes 3y ago
I don't think there's enough space in the US to plant a trillion trees.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  Two words - Bonsai Trees...
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  ”Planting one trillion trees would also require a massive amount of space — roughly the size of the continental United States.“
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    TIL, area on Earth = area of the continental United States
    - tgv 3y ago
      It's a proposal to compensate for the US' CO2, so it should be doable on their own territory.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Actually, there is! I according to the article all we have to do is move the entire US population to megacities on Hawaii, and leave the rest of the country as forest. Although that might be to get to a trillion trees total, not add a trillion. It's unclear.

chomp 3y ago

It’s a ludicrous proposal, requiring these trees to be planted in other nations. And nothing to say of the logistics of keeping 1 trillion trees alive long enough to maturity. Or even to just produce the saplings and ship them. If you do the math on just raising a trillion saplings, it’s mind boggling.

tzs 3y ago
> It’s a ludicrous proposal, requiring these trees to be planted in other nations. Doesn't everything to address climate change require things to be done in other countries?
- chomp 3y ago
  True, I didn’t mean working with other nations is ludicrous, only that the largest countries by area that could host these trees are the US, China, and Russia, and we’re not best friends right now. You’d have to pick a lot of smaller area countries to cooperate and when you bring in the logistics, it goes out of control.
- tgv 3y ago
  Not to compensate for the US' own CO2 production.
beej71 3y ago
The math on the saplings is easy. Grow 10,000 before the next election, then grow the rest right after that. :)

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

It is a global proposal. https://www.science.org/content/article/adding-1-billion-hectares-forest-could-help-check-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/adding-1-billion-hec... > Oh, look. It’s ben studied, and the answer is “it won’t work”: No, it hasn't. That is just one guy's analysis.

tgv 3y ago
> No, it hasn't. That is just one guy's analysis. Your article doesn't even attempt an in-depth analysis. It just counts the area required. From that article: > Those added trees could sequester 205 gigatons of carbon in the coming decades, roughly five times the amount emitted globally in 2018. So that's enough for 5 years. And after that? Plant another trillion? That article says there's only space for 0.9T, period.

beej71 3y ago

I didn't do the math on the area (actually I did and it looked plausible, but I'm super jetlagged rn and really don't trust my work :-D ), but there is an awful lot of space in the western US. And trees can be mechanically planted at rates of up to 5000 per hour "at a well-prepared site".[1] Sadly, the US is becoming increasingly intolerable to trees and forests are dying off. [1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/seedlings/planting/mechplan.htm https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/seedlings/planting/mechplan.htm

tgv 3y ago
It's pretty hard to believe a machine can do 5000 per hour. Trees need to be well spaced, but ok. 5000 trees per hour, that's 200M hours or 23000 years. So: build 2000 machines and achieve it in 11 years? Well, there's no factory to build 2000 such machines. It would also require an enormous supply chain, since these machines are going to work over an area of roughly 3000x5000 km. And: it says "a well prepared site". That means leveling the whole of the US. You cannot do that in 10 years, not even in 100. Large parts of the US are unsuitable for planting. Other large parts are already forested: you'd have to remove billions of existing trees to plant 1 trillion. It's sheer lunacy, only to avoid upsetting the Republicans' wealthy friends. Note that I didn't mention fraud and bribery.