5 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoDepends on where the carbon goes. Into a home? Locked up for a long time. Under a cooking stove? Released.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoBut 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 agoI 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 agoInteresting 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 agoBasically 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 agohttps://charmindustrial.com https://charmindustrial.com
- pfdietz 2y agoThere's been a proposal to bury them not-so-deep, but saturated with salt to prevent decomposition. It's not necessary to sequester the carbon forever, just on a time scale for natural absorption of the CO2 into oceans and then into carbonates (which is something like 100,000 years, IIRC).
- ieidkeheb 2y agoSo that someone in the future can discover these reserves and use it as fuel?!?!!?!
- vixen99 2y agoNo, by then it's at least conceivable that cold fusion will by then be a reality. If an individual cracks this problem maybe they'll offer a paper ending with a comment akin to Watson & Cricks 1953 paper on DNA. "It has not escaped our attention that ..." Or words to that effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGgovWTBoWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGgovWTBoWY (Hossenfelder) https://lenr-canr.org/ https://lenr-canr.org/ (Library)
- internet_points 2y agohttps://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-... says a new forest the size of New Mexico might offset the US's emissions. Or not. It depends. But first thing to do would be not to cut down the existing ones.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoThey say it would take a forest the size of New Mexico "to account for one year of American emissions" - given that trees both process CO2 during respiration and act as sinks when they grow, I can't tell if they'd be able to offset those emissions the next year as well or if we'd need a new forest.
- nfw2 2y agoTrees produce CO2 during respiration and intake it during photosynthesis. The carbon captured during photosynthesis will be offset to some degree by the tree's own need to consume glucose.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thfuran 2y agoWe need to be building a mountain range out of diamonds.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoCan you imagine the extraterrestrial archaeologist trying to explain that?
- bluGill 2y agoNo - stupid slow speed of light stops so many interesting science fiction imaginations.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoReality is very much a bummer.
- goatlover 2y agoSome of those interesting scifi scenarios would not be so good for us.
- lupusreal 2y agoIt's true that the speed of light prevents it from actually happening, but you should still be able to imagine it.
- internet_points 2y agoThe nice thing about making diamonds as opposed to coal or bio-oil is that it's quite hard to burn the diamond, so less chance of someone getting tempted into using these enormous reserves that are just sitting there, depreciating, to fuel the helicopter of their bitcoin-mining luxury cruise ship or create an ultra-fast pizza delivery service using rocket launchers
- internet_points 2y agoThat 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 agoBe interesting to go back even further, pre agriculture. The world would be awash with trees.
- bluGill 2y agoNot really. In some places yes, but trees need specific conditions to exist: there would be lots of grass land and deserts too.
- vasco 2y agoIf 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 agogain yes, but not one showing the losses per country
- vasco 2y agoHappy 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 agoAnd 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 agoI 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 agoSo 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 agoI 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.