5 ms·

I think the 30kg/tree varies widely both by species and conditions, and critically given the timeline you've mentioned (by 2030) by _maturity_. E.g. this source

by abeppu 3y ago

I think the 30kg/tree varies widely both by species and conditions, and critically given the timeline you've mentioned (by 2030) by _maturity_. E.g. this source estimates 10kg/year for the first 20 years, but if much of that is after year 6-7, even if we could plant a trillion trees by 2030, they would not be close to the levels of carbon fixation you're mentioning. It's ambitious, but _even if we succeed_, it won't be impactful in the time horizon you're discussing. In 2030 we may have a large proportion of 1-3 year old tiny saplings that may each weigh only a few kg (wet). (update: forgot the link for source mentioned) https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-tree-absorb https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-t...

danbruc 3y ago
I intentionally picked the favorable numbers as I was expecting even with those it would turn out to be a pretty futile endeavor, even ignoring things like forest fires. And it pretty much is, at least with a billion trees. And for a trillion trees I can not see how this could realistically happen. I would have to plant a tree every three weeks for the next seven and a half years, 125 trees in total, that sounds not too impossible. But once you consider that everyone in your city will have to the same - and every other human on earth - I don't think it would be too long before I would no longer be able to find a spot for the next tree where it interferes with nothing and can grow for a couple of decades.
- delecti 3y ago
  "Fortunately" for the sake of this problem, we've got 1000 years of land that was cleared to get lumber. Not all of it is land that we could replant trees on (some being used for farming or housing), but for a decade-long society-wide project I wouldn't be too concerned, if there were actually political will to do it.
smileysteve 3y ago
Why are we not considering clumping bamboo or/andor hemp; Both of which take root easier, and grow 3x-5x faster, require less water.

by abeppu 3y ago

danbruc 3y ago

I intentionally picked the favorable numbers as I was expecting even with those it would turn out to be a pretty futile endeavor, even ignoring things like forest fires. And it pretty much is, at least with a billion trees. And for a trillion trees I can not see how this could realistically happen. I would have to plant a tree every three weeks for the next seven and a half years, 125 trees in total, that sounds not too impossible. But once you consider that everyone in your city will have to the same - and every other human on earth - I don't think it would be too long before I would no longer be able to find a spot for the next tree where it interferes with nothing and can grow for a couple of decades.

delecti 3y ago
"Fortunately" for the sake of this problem, we've got 1000 years of land that was cleared to get lumber. Not all of it is land that we could replant trees on (some being used for farming or housing), but for a decade-long society-wide project I wouldn't be too concerned, if there were actually political will to do it.

smileysteve 3y ago

Why are we not considering clumping bamboo or/andor hemp; Both of which take root easier, and grow 3x-5x faster, require less water.