4 ms·

This won't get resolved until collectively we move from "planted X millions of trees" to "X millions of trees have flourished for 5/10/15 years". The problem o

This won't get resolved until collectively we move from "planted X millions of trees" to "X millions of trees have flourished for 5/10/15 years". The problem of course is that it's a) much more difficult and expensive to keep track of survival rates, and b) provides no immediate green-washing credentials (politicians, corps, looking at you). Thankfully there are some NGOs that are doing it right, proper analysis of the site, selection of diverse species, and yearly visits to measure survival rates. It's just that presently, these are the minority.

hosh 3y ago
Have you ever heard of Scientific Forestry? It was something documented in James C Scott's Seeing Like a State. Here's a long-form essay summerizing the ideas in the book: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call... These forests were planted during the late colonial era by the French and German. The great naval powers at the time were running out of trees tall and straight enough to make masts. They cut down natural old-growth forests, and planted trees in a way that makes it easier to count. They grew better, and called it a success. However, that first generation grew well because they used up the nutrients banked by the natural forest. The subsequent generations did not grow as well. So over the centuries or so of trying this, they tried things like, adding in insects, and measuring their rate of growth. But it all stems trying to force a complex system into something that is legible, but the results are its own folly.[1] Frankly, our climate and global ecosystem is a complex, adaptive system [2][3][4], and to think that we can reduce solutions based on a single metric, such as atmospheric CO2 numbers, is a disaster in the making from our collective hubris. [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-s-trees-are-dying-fierce-debate-has-broken-out-over-how-respond https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-s-trees-are-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework#Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework#Complex [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
- nickserv 3y ago
  Indeed, ideally we should be thinking in tree lifespans, or several hundred years. But right now, we plant oaks, which can live for centuries, and don't even think about next year's dry season. And then wonder why they die from lack of water. Now fast growing sitkas, which can be harvested in 30 years for profit, seem to be doing just fine...
  - tough 3y ago
    A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they may never sit.

hosh 3y ago

Have you ever heard of Scientific Forestry? It was something documented in James C Scott's Seeing Like a State. Here's a long-form essay summerizing the ideas in the book: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call... These forests were planted during the late colonial era by the French and German. The great naval powers at the time were running out of trees tall and straight enough to make masts. They cut down natural old-growth forests, and planted trees in a way that makes it easier to count. They grew better, and called it a success. However, that first generation grew well because they used up the nutrients banked by the natural forest. The subsequent generations did not grow as well. So over the centuries or so of trying this, they tried things like, adding in insects, and measuring their rate of growth. But it all stems trying to force a complex system into something that is legible, but the results are its own folly.[1] Frankly, our climate and global ecosystem is a complex, adaptive system [2][3][4], and to think that we can reduce solutions based on a single metric, such as atmospheric CO2 numbers, is a disaster in the making from our collective hubris. [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-s-trees-are-dying-fierce-debate-has-broken-out-over-how-respond https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-s-trees-are-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework#Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework#Complex [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

nickserv 3y ago
Indeed, ideally we should be thinking in tree lifespans, or several hundred years. But right now, we plant oaks, which can live for centuries, and don't even think about next year's dry season. And then wonder why they die from lack of water. Now fast growing sitkas, which can be harvested in 30 years for profit, seem to be doing just fine...
- tough 3y ago
  A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they may never sit.