5 ms·
95% correct. "Planting a lot of trees" has been proven dead wrong because of simple math, plant matter decay, and increasing fucking forest fires. Instead, #tea
by sacnoradhq 3y ago
95% correct. "Planting a lot of trees" has been proven dead wrong because of simple math, plant matter decay, and increasing fucking forest fires. Instead, #teamtrees couldn't face reality while doing the disservice of misinforming and lying to millions of people for egotistical and aspirational post-factual rhetoric. https://youtu.be/gqht2bIQXIY https://youtu.be/gqht2bIQXIY
- pvaldes 3y ago> "Planting a lot of trees" has been proven dead wrong because of simple math Planting a lot of trees and let the trees grow still looks a much better plan that most of the other options and magical solutions. We just need to find the courage to try it seriously. Forest fires are a crime in 90% of the times. The idea that we can't do what we need to do because criminals exist is not acceptable. We just need to make this crime much more expensive, painful and unprofitable for that people
- soupbowl 3y agoForest fires are a natural state of forest and required for a healthy forest for many types of forest.
- pvaldes 3y agoThen we will need to unblock and support the grow of the other types of forest. Forests shouldn't be composed of a 99% of <10 Years old trees Do people know that there is an humid Mediterranean forest ecosystem? Do people know that some Eucaliptus species evolved as part of humid ecosystems?
- tuatoru 3y agoYes of course people know this. But policymakers "flatten" knowledge when making policy. See James C. Scott's "Seeing Like A State" for discussion of how this plays out in development projects. What we have got is exactly what we can expect. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State Required reading for anyone who seeks to understand what happens at the scale of a city, or larger.
- lazide 3y agoOh man, delusions abound. Trees grow - then plateau/stop growing. They don’t (and can’t!) meaningfully keep sequestering carbon. And even if you covered the remaining non-tree covered portion of the earth (somehow) with trees, it still won’t solve the problem.
- 3seashells 3y agoYou could sequestered by storing plant matter biologically inert underground. Deep lime mine shafts landfill..of compressed biomatter
- lazide 3y agoConsidering how energy intensive it is to gather, shred/pulp, transport, and pump said material - wouldn’t it be a lot better to do that with algae or the like though? Trees are tough, and grow well in inhospital and rough terrain. That’s basically their value prop? Growing them in good crop land for something like this would be a waste, for instance. They are good for building materials, and that is one of the longer forms of sequestration. Transport and processing is a big cost there already, and makes it dubious carbon neutrality wise currently.
- pvaldes 3y agoThis is logging business, not conservation. Making furniture when we need to make climate. What was the title of this thread? > Growing them in good crop land for something like this would be a waste, for instance. Obviously not, because environmental services are also needed
- lazide 3y agoNot logging those trees is neither conservation or sequestration. But you seem to be stuck on that. And those crops not only would sequester carbon faster most likely (if you buried them anyway), but be far more scalable and efficient in doing so. I love trees, but square peg round hole.
- lazide 3y agoTrees literally won’t and can’t solve the problem. They’re a temporary buffer at best. That’s the problem.
- pvaldes 3y agoI will choose the planet with the temporary buffer over the planets without any buffer; thanks. All the time
- lazide 3y agoIf you spend all your time building a limited, temporary buffer - that catches on fire in high heat no less! - instead of a more scalable solution, then you’ll end up burning while people who actually did the math go ‘wtf’.
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]