5 ms·

"rises by nearly one third" sounds a bit strange to me, more correct would be "Plant CO2 uptake is currently underestimated by one third according to new resear

by rob74 2y ago

"rises by nearly one third" sounds a bit strange to me, more correct would be "Plant CO2 uptake is currently underestimated by one third according to new research"? > The research, detailed in the journal Nature, is expected to improve Earth system simulations that scientists use to predict the future climate, and spotlights the importance of natural carbon sequestration for greenhouse gas mitigation. Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown)...

vasco 2y ago
Not everywhere, between 2000 and 2020, 36 countries managed to get more tree cover than they lost, so we "just" need to expand this practice. https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-gain https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest... > Even though the world gained 130.9 Mha of tree cover between 2000 and 2020, it still lost much more, with an overall net loss of 100.6 Mha. While the global numbers report a negative trajectory, there are distinct regional patterns or “hotspots” of net gain. At least 36 countries gained more tree cover than they lost over the 20-year time period. As a continent, Europe gained 6 million hectares of tree cover by 2020. Asia also had a large proportion of countries with net gain, particularly in Central and South Asia. The drivers of much of this gain (for example, what proportion is due to intentional restoration interventions versus land abandonment) are still difficult to determine using the available data, but are a key area for future research. Additionally, even though tree cover gain is occurring in many places, it doesn’t “cancel out” the impacts of loss. Primary forests in particular serve as critical carbon stores and support an intricate network of wildlife, none of which can easily be replaced once lost.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  I don't know that getting more trees than you lost is a useful or effective measure against climate change. It's a good thing, certainly, but I imagine the amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere requires more than a steady state of trees. I wonder how much of the world we'd need to cover with trees in order to offset our carbon production, certainly more than we've had during modern civilization.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Depends on where the carbon goes. Into a home? Locked up for a long time. Under a cooking stove? Released.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      But does it help worrying about where we're putting logs while we're burning fossil fuels? We need to plant enough trees to offset all the trees we're burning, but also all the gasoline, oil, and natural gas we're burning as well as all the concrete we're producing. The math seems like it'll never balance.
      - argiopetech 2y ago
        I did the back of the napkin math below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42697255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42697255 Barring mistakes, it balances if we had avoided reducing the planet's vegetation by 20% since 1900. So much for that. That's obviously not "the" solution, but it seems like reducing fuel burn while increasing forestation would benefit us beyond what is commonly expected.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        Interesting math, so it is mathematically possible. Important to note, 1 billion hectares is just over the size of all of the United States.
  - baq 2y ago
    Basically we need to grow trees as fast as possible, cut them down and bury them deep, exactly the opposite of what we’re doing when mining fossil fuels. No wonder there’s exactly zero people doing that.
    - maxwell 2y ago
      https://charmindustrial.com https://charmindustrial.com
- internet_points 2y ago
  That first map makes it seem like we had gains pretty much all over the world, but it's not showing net gain, most of the countries of the world had a net tree cover loss. I wish it had a map showing net losses per country too – and it'd be interesting to see it going back in time, many countries had periods of very extensive logging during the 1800's and 1900's.
  - _joel 2y ago
    Be interesting to go back even further, pre agriculture. The world would be awash with trees.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Not really. In some places yes, but trees need specific conditions to exist: there would be lots of grass land and deserts too.
  - vasco 2y ago
    If you scroll there is indeed a map with net gain in the page I shared. Direct link to the net gain map file here: https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/gfr/2022-10/36%20countries%20gained%20more%20trees%20than%20they%20lost%2C%202000-2020.png https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/gfr/2022-10/36%...
    - internet_points 2y ago
      gain yes, but not one showing the losses per country
      - vasco 2y ago
        Happy to be your personal google, gives me an excuse to look at it again. This dashboard is good for that https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/?category=forest-change&location=WyJnbG9iYWwiXQ%3D%3D https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/?categor... This visualization is also good: https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  And it’s not just trees. Ever heard of “justdiggit”? They found that digging holes in the desert functionally accumulates enough water to promote diverse plant life. It’s apparent an ancient practice. They organize groups to do it. Ecological stewardship is, I hope, a key shift in mindset from the current totalizing view of global warming. https://justdiggit.org/ https://justdiggit.org/
  - vasco 2y ago
    I didn't know about this but after several documentaries on the medium to long term impact of these projects many areas being more detrimental than beneficial I tend to be a bit skeptical. I get particularly skeptical when the whole website is geared towards taking in corporate donations rather than teaching how to do it and direct action and a sort of wiki of how to do it yourself as well as evangelizing that. I didn't spend too long on the website but this page https://justdiggit.org/dig-in/farmer/start-regreening/ https://justdiggit.org/dig-in/farmer/start-regreening/ seems to be the closest to that, yet it's still no instructions and just marketing. I don't want to sound too negative or make a judgment call with too little information but wanted to share my worries as it has become all too common for grifters to take advantage of the situation in a sort of partnership with huge corporation leadership teams. They get free money and the leadership team gets to greenwash whatever they do in their core business. I never researched this specific one in detail other than a few minutes now, but the company I worked for previously used to do this style of donations and we found a lot of projects like this.
    - dr_dshiv 2y ago
      So take a minute to look at their impact reports and then we can discuss the evidence. https://justdiggit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Justdiggit-Impact-Highlights-2023.pdf https://justdiggit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Justdiggit... Sorry I shared the main link— they are an NGO that raises money, that’s how it works.
      - vasco 2y ago
        I just find it hard to understand that if you really found out digging holes has this much impact, and you truly care, that you wouldn't share schematics and detailed guides on how to do it in your own land, does that make sense? They would of course still try to do larger projects, but it just feels strange enough to cause doubt for me. Sorry if it's a misjudgement.
internet_points 2y ago
Are there any good charities that buy up green land for the sake of not doing anything to it? From what I've read of carbon capture economics, it seems a frillion times more effective to simply not chop down more forest compared to investing in carbon capture (though I'm not saying we shouldn't do both)
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  Yes, the Nature Conservancy is a large nonprofit that buys lands to hold in its natural state, albeit not at the scale needed to offset industrial activities. They tend to focus more on qualities like undisturbed ecosystems, or biodiversity, than climate change. And in the U.S. at least, many states have a concept of a conservation easement where you get a tax advantage by promising not to disturb or develop land you own. This is used by some wealthy individuals to lock up a bunch of land undisturbed. But again, so far it is not remotely close to offsetting the overall human behaviors that are forcing warming. (As evidenced by the directly measured rising CO2 levels and temperature anomalies.)
- tfourb 2y ago
  Search for „rewilding“. It’s a popular approach in the UK but you’ll find projects in other countries, too.
- dpcx 2y ago
  Not exactly what you're asking for, but [Ecologi](https://ecologi.com/ https://ecologi.com/) is doing lots of work on the tree-planting front, but also doing other work that helps with climate change, like solar panel setups in Morocco, wind farms in the US, methane emissions in Brazil, and more.
yobbo 2y ago
> Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown)... Carbon is captured when trees grow. Lumber binds carbon into buildings and constructions.
- thfuran 2y ago
  I think the subsistence farmers cutting down the Amazon are doing more burning than construction.
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  It’s a net negative over time if the square footage that was housing a tree is replaced with grassland or a neighborhood. You trade a one-time, one-tree-sized fixing event against all fixing by all future generations of trees on that spot. The climate math of lumber works if you’re talking about “productive forests” where trees are allowed to grow to replace trees cut down. It doesn’t work for situations when a forest is cleared and not replaced, which is mostly what is happening where rainforest is being cleared.
  - mech987876 2y ago
    Most (all?) of the carbon sequestered by a tree that dies and rots on the forest floor goes back into the atmosphere. So the "fixing by all future generations" is just the same carbon sink as the current 1 alive standing tree for that spot of real estate.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      A tiny amount is turned to coal (often via forest fires) which then isn't returned to the cycle. We are talking about -0.1C over thousands of years though, if we otherwise went carbon neutral - which seems unlikely for the long tail of small users but if we get the major uses of fossil fuels to something carbon neutral that would get us very close to stopping global warming at least.
    - SamBam 2y ago
      Regardless, the net carbon sink of a healthy forest is higher than the net carbon sink of a few houses that were built in its place. Simply think of the number of tons of wood in an acre of forest, compared with the number of tons of wood in a housing development. It doesn't matter that some trees die and release their carbon, other trees grow. Instead of thinking of individual trees, simply think of the entire biomass of the forest.
HPsquared 2y ago
Underestimated by one quarter! A factor of 4/3 or 3/4.
rasengan 2y ago
There are plants in the ocean that man will have trouble to cut down. Earth isn’t the same kind of living organism as man, but it’s an organism just like AI isn’t the same intelligence as that of man’s, but it is intelligence.
moralestapia 2y ago
>Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown)... Hmm, anyone has data on this? I've seen many people claiming the opposite of that opposite.
dang 2y ago
Ok, we've made the estimates rise in the title above. Thanks!
deelowe 2y ago
> Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown). This is not true. Sustainable forestry practices have been increasing forest coverage for some time now.
jamiecurle 2y ago
At least in the UK woodland cover is increasing. It was 3% back in 1900~ and today it stands at about [13%][0]. The aim in the UK is to be at 15% woodland and tree coverage by 2050 – quite achievable. I currently teach woodland management and arboriculture (I also run a weird hybrid business doing software and arboriculture) in the UK and the idea that we cut down more than we plant is a common misconception that I spend a lot of time (and I mean a lot of time) correcting with the public and general layperson. Felling trees for forestry purposes requires a felling license[1], which always comes with a re-stocking clause. As for urban green infrastructure (basically private and municipal trees and hedges), that comes with it's own issues, and there's a lot of wins to be had there but there are also lots of challenges. I know the Arboricultural Association in the UK are doing some great work here to advocate for finding ways to retain private and municipal trees whilst managing risk to the public (the main reason trees are normally removed second only to "aesthetic"). Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is also a thing in the UK which broadly translates to ensuring that any private building works or developments must now have a demonstrable positive effect on local biodiversity and where that's not possible, then developers can "offset" by commissioning biodiversity projects elsewhere. For example, I've just taken delivery of 1200 trees (oak, hazel) today, which will be planted into semi-ancient woodland that I manage. So basically the idea that we're cutting down forest ahead of what can restock isn't accurate, in fact in the UK at least, it is quite the opposite. A good news story for you. [0]: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/publications/woodland-statistics/#:~:text=The%20area%20of%20woodland%20in,and%209%25%20in%20Northern%20Ireland https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statis.... [1]: unless it is a) less than five cubic metres in a twelve week period (basically "thinning" woodland so that other trees have room to grow / habitat improvement for priority habitats). b) a private tree without a preservation order/ fruit tree, c) diseased or dying or d) a suitably high risk to public safety.
- PcChip 2y ago
  I heard that the major problem with replanting efforts is monoculture. What are your thoughts on that?
  - jamiecurle 2y ago
sharpshadow 2y ago
I think they mean the global CO2 uptake from plants is 30% higher overall not that a single plant is able to uptake 30% more than the estimated before. Even though more CO2 pressure in the atmosphere increases also the potential uptake in a plant.
graemep 2y ago
> Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown)... "Plants" is not a synonym for "trees". There are grasslands that are significant carbon sinks - even farmland managed in the right way can be a carbon sink . The oceans (which have a notable lack of trees) are a major carbon sink (although this paper is not talking about this, if I understand the abstract correctly).

by rob74 2y ago

vasco 2y ago

Not everywhere, between 2000 and 2020, 36 countries managed to get more tree cover than they lost, so we "just" need to expand this practice. https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-gain https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest... > Even though the world gained 130.9 Mha of tree cover between 2000 and 2020, it still lost much more, with an overall net loss of 100.6 Mha. While the global numbers report a negative trajectory, there are distinct regional patterns or “hotspots” of net gain. At least 36 countries gained more tree cover than they lost over the 20-year time period. As a continent, Europe gained 6 million hectares of tree cover by 2020. Asia also had a large proportion of countries with net gain, particularly in Central and South Asia. The drivers of much of this gain (for example, what proportion is due to intentional restoration interventions versus land abandonment) are still difficult to determine using the available data, but are a key area for future research. Additionally, even though tree cover gain is occurring in many places, it doesn’t “cancel out” the impacts of loss. Primary forests in particular serve as critical carbon stores and support an intricate network of wildlife, none of which can easily be replaced once lost.

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
I don't know that getting more trees than you lost is a useful or effective measure against climate change. It's a good thing, certainly, but I imagine the amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere requires more than a steady state of trees. I wonder how much of the world we'd need to cover with trees in order to offset our carbon production, certainly more than we've had during modern civilization.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Depends on where the carbon goes. Into a home? Locked up for a long time. Under a cooking stove? Released.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    But does it help worrying about where we're putting logs while we're burning fossil fuels? We need to plant enough trees to offset all the trees we're burning, but also all the gasoline, oil, and natural gas we're burning as well as all the concrete we're producing. The math seems like it'll never balance.
    - argiopetech 2y ago
      I did the back of the napkin math below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42697255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42697255 Barring mistakes, it balances if we had avoided reducing the planet's vegetation by 20% since 1900. So much for that. That's obviously not "the" solution, but it seems like reducing fuel burn while increasing forestation would benefit us beyond what is commonly expected.
      - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        Interesting math, so it is mathematically possible. Important to note, 1 billion hectares is just over the size of all of the United States.
- baq 2y ago
  Basically we need to grow trees as fast as possible, cut them down and bury them deep, exactly the opposite of what we’re doing when mining fossil fuels. No wonder there’s exactly zero people doing that.
  - maxwell 2y ago
    https://charmindustrial.com https://charmindustrial.com
internet_points 2y ago
That first map makes it seem like we had gains pretty much all over the world, but it's not showing net gain, most of the countries of the world had a net tree cover loss. I wish it had a map showing net losses per country too – and it'd be interesting to see it going back in time, many countries had periods of very extensive logging during the 1800's and 1900's.
- _joel 2y ago
  Be interesting to go back even further, pre agriculture. The world would be awash with trees.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Not really. In some places yes, but trees need specific conditions to exist: there would be lots of grass land and deserts too.
- vasco 2y ago
  If you scroll there is indeed a map with net gain in the page I shared. Direct link to the net gain map file here: https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/gfr/2022-10/36%20countries%20gained%20more%20trees%20than%20they%20lost%2C%202000-2020.png https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/gfr/2022-10/36%...
  - internet_points 2y ago
    gain yes, but not one showing the losses per country
    - vasco 2y ago
      Happy to be your personal google, gives me an excuse to look at it again. This dashboard is good for that https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/?category=forest-change&location=WyJnbG9iYWwiXQ%3D%3D https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/?categor... This visualization is also good: https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
dr_dshiv 2y ago
And it’s not just trees. Ever heard of “justdiggit”? They found that digging holes in the desert functionally accumulates enough water to promote diverse plant life. It’s apparent an ancient practice. They organize groups to do it. Ecological stewardship is, I hope, a key shift in mindset from the current totalizing view of global warming. https://justdiggit.org/ https://justdiggit.org/
- vasco 2y ago
  I didn't know about this but after several documentaries on the medium to long term impact of these projects many areas being more detrimental than beneficial I tend to be a bit skeptical. I get particularly skeptical when the whole website is geared towards taking in corporate donations rather than teaching how to do it and direct action and a sort of wiki of how to do it yourself as well as evangelizing that. I didn't spend too long on the website but this page https://justdiggit.org/dig-in/farmer/start-regreening/ https://justdiggit.org/dig-in/farmer/start-regreening/ seems to be the closest to that, yet it's still no instructions and just marketing. I don't want to sound too negative or make a judgment call with too little information but wanted to share my worries as it has become all too common for grifters to take advantage of the situation in a sort of partnership with huge corporation leadership teams. They get free money and the leadership team gets to greenwash whatever they do in their core business. I never researched this specific one in detail other than a few minutes now, but the company I worked for previously used to do this style of donations and we found a lot of projects like this.
  - dr_dshiv 2y ago
    So take a minute to look at their impact reports and then we can discuss the evidence. https://justdiggit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Justdiggit-Impact-Highlights-2023.pdf https://justdiggit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Justdiggit... Sorry I shared the main link— they are an NGO that raises money, that’s how it works.
    - vasco 2y ago
      I just find it hard to understand that if you really found out digging holes has this much impact, and you truly care, that you wouldn't share schematics and detailed guides on how to do it in your own land, does that make sense? They would of course still try to do larger projects, but it just feels strange enough to cause doubt for me. Sorry if it's a misjudgement.

internet_points 2y ago

Are there any good charities that buy up green land for the sake of not doing anything to it? From what I've read of carbon capture economics, it seems a frillion times more effective to simply not chop down more forest compared to investing in carbon capture (though I'm not saying we shouldn't do both)

snowwrestler 2y ago
Yes, the Nature Conservancy is a large nonprofit that buys lands to hold in its natural state, albeit not at the scale needed to offset industrial activities. They tend to focus more on qualities like undisturbed ecosystems, or biodiversity, than climate change. And in the U.S. at least, many states have a concept of a conservation easement where you get a tax advantage by promising not to disturb or develop land you own. This is used by some wealthy individuals to lock up a bunch of land undisturbed. But again, so far it is not remotely close to offsetting the overall human behaviors that are forcing warming. (As evidenced by the directly measured rising CO2 levels and temperature anomalies.)
tfourb 2y ago
Search for „rewilding“. It’s a popular approach in the UK but you’ll find projects in other countries, too.
dpcx 2y ago
Not exactly what you're asking for, but [Ecologi](https://ecologi.com/ https://ecologi.com/) is doing lots of work on the tree-planting front, but also doing other work that helps with climate change, like solar panel setups in Morocco, wind farms in the US, methane emissions in Brazil, and more.

yobbo 2y ago

> Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown)... Carbon is captured when trees grow. Lumber binds carbon into buildings and constructions.

thfuran 2y ago
I think the subsistence farmers cutting down the Amazon are doing more burning than construction.
snowwrestler 2y ago
It’s a net negative over time if the square footage that was housing a tree is replaced with grassland or a neighborhood. You trade a one-time, one-tree-sized fixing event against all fixing by all future generations of trees on that spot. The climate math of lumber works if you’re talking about “productive forests” where trees are allowed to grow to replace trees cut down. It doesn’t work for situations when a forest is cleared and not replaced, which is mostly what is happening where rainforest is being cleared.
- mech987876 2y ago
  Most (all?) of the carbon sequestered by a tree that dies and rots on the forest floor goes back into the atmosphere. So the "fixing by all future generations" is just the same carbon sink as the current 1 alive standing tree for that spot of real estate.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    A tiny amount is turned to coal (often via forest fires) which then isn't returned to the cycle. We are talking about -0.1C over thousands of years though, if we otherwise went carbon neutral - which seems unlikely for the long tail of small users but if we get the major uses of fossil fuels to something carbon neutral that would get us very close to stopping global warming at least.
  - SamBam 2y ago
    Regardless, the net carbon sink of a healthy forest is higher than the net carbon sink of a few houses that were built in its place. Simply think of the number of tons of wood in an acre of forest, compared with the number of tons of wood in a housing development. It doesn't matter that some trees die and release their carbon, other trees grow. Instead of thinking of individual trees, simply think of the entire biomass of the forest.

HPsquared 2y ago

Underestimated by one quarter! A factor of 4/3 or 3/4.

rasengan 2y ago

There are plants in the ocean that man will have trouble to cut down. Earth isn’t the same kind of living organism as man, but it’s an organism just like AI isn’t the same intelligence as that of man’s, but it is intelligence.

moralestapia 2y ago

>Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown)... Hmm, anyone has data on this? I've seen many people claiming the opposite of that opposite.

dang 2y ago

Ok, we've made the estimates rise in the title above. Thanks!

deelowe 2y ago

> Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown). This is not true. Sustainable forestry practices have been increasing forest coverage for some time now.

jamiecurle 2y ago

At least in the UK woodland cover is increasing. It was 3% back in 1900~ and today it stands at about [13%][0]. The aim in the UK is to be at 15% woodland and tree coverage by 2050 – quite achievable. I currently teach woodland management and arboriculture (I also run a weird hybrid business doing software and arboriculture) in the UK and the idea that we cut down more than we plant is a common misconception that I spend a lot of time (and I mean a lot of time) correcting with the public and general layperson. Felling trees for forestry purposes requires a felling license[1], which always comes with a re-stocking clause. As for urban green infrastructure (basically private and municipal trees and hedges), that comes with it's own issues, and there's a lot of wins to be had there but there are also lots of challenges. I know the Arboricultural Association in the UK are doing some great work here to advocate for finding ways to retain private and municipal trees whilst managing risk to the public (the main reason trees are normally removed second only to "aesthetic"). Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is also a thing in the UK which broadly translates to ensuring that any private building works or developments must now have a demonstrable positive effect on local biodiversity and where that's not possible, then developers can "offset" by commissioning biodiversity projects elsewhere. For example, I've just taken delivery of 1200 trees (oak, hazel) today, which will be planted into semi-ancient woodland that I manage. So basically the idea that we're cutting down forest ahead of what can restock isn't accurate, in fact in the UK at least, it is quite the opposite. A good news story for you. [0]: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/publications/woodland-statistics/#:~:text=The%20area%20of%20woodland%20in,and%209%25%20in%20Northern%20Ireland https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statis.... [1]: unless it is a) less than five cubic metres in a twelve week period (basically "thinning" woodland so that other trees have room to grow / habitat improvement for priority habitats). b) a private tree without a preservation order/ fruit tree, c) diseased or dying or d) a suitably high risk to public safety.

PcChip 2y ago
I heard that the major problem with replanting efforts is monoculture. What are your thoughts on that?
- jamiecurle 2y ago

sharpshadow 2y ago

I think they mean the global CO2 uptake from plants is 30% higher overall not that a single plant is able to uptake 30% more than the estimated before. Even though more CO2 pressure in the atmosphere increases also the potential uptake in a plant.

graemep 2y ago

> Too bad that we are currently doing the exact opposite (cutting down more forest than is regrown)... "Plants" is not a synonym for "trees". There are grasslands that are significant carbon sinks - even farmland managed in the right way can be a carbon sink . The oceans (which have a notable lack of trees) are a major carbon sink (although this paper is not talking about this, if I understand the abstract correctly).