3 ms·

Sadly, planting trees does little to help with the global warming problem. Flora are only temporary sinks for carbon; as soon as the tree dies it will go back

by araneae 17y ago

Sadly, planting trees does little to help with the global warming problem. Flora are only temporary sinks for carbon; as soon as the tree dies it will go back up into the atmosphere. Since we're releasing carbon from fossils, what we really need to do to restore the carbon cycle is put the carbon back into fossils. Sadly, this takes a really long time.

kierank 17y ago
as soon as the tree dies it will go back up into the atmosphere That implies combustion which doesn't occur.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Plus a lot of a tree's mass is in the roots. Wouldn't be surprised if it would be over 50%.
- sp332 17y ago
  As the tree rots, the bacteria, fungus, etc release a lot of CO2 and methane. Enzymes obviate combustion.
- araneae 17y ago
  No, it doesn't combust. If you remember, animals exhale CO2. The tree becomes detritus, which gets consumed by detritovores (such as cockroaches), which convert it into CO2.
josefresco 17y ago
so tree is capturing carbon for what, 20, 40, 80 years? And then when it dies it slowly starts releasing some back into the atmosphere? Seems like a better plan than anything we have now.
- skolor 17y ago
  This also assumes trees are a one-off thing. As far as I know, trees tend to reproduce, and during their lives have a habit of creating more, new trees. I would really like to see government funded sustainable farming initiatives. Some sort of plan which involves creating sustainable (meaning cycling crops over the course of several years, long term plans that create soil that is fertile and usable to continue growing in, and the like) farms, with the intent that they be at least somewhat self-sufficient. I don't know the logistics behind it, but I would think it should be more than possible for large scale, self sufficient farms, using environmentally helpful methods, and planting things that aren't necessarily selected for maximum yield, but for maximizing the (positive) impact on the surrounding environment.
- araneae 17y ago
  Also, this: http://www.scidev.net/en/news/planting-trees-will-not-cancel-out-climate-change.html http://www.scidev.net/en/news/planting-trees-will-not-cancel...
pyre 17y ago
It's obviously not a long-term plan, because even if the trees were not to die -- and decompose, releasing carbon back into the atmosphere -- we can only plant so many trees. On the other hand, it's really the best thing that we have going right now. Most other plans require the coordination of large groups of people that just don't care enough to do anything. On other words, it's nowhere near a silver bullet, but it's better than nothing.
araneae 17y ago
I have to say that I'm a little bit turned off by the fact that this comment went negative. Not to pull "authority" on all of you, but I'm a graduate student who teaches introductory classes on ecology. This week we're actually teaching this material, and part of what we're teaching is exactly what I said in this comment. The burning of fossil fuels is especially problematic because fossils are a long term sink. Sequestering it in organic material is an extremely temporary (by comparison) solution. I could have gone off on how planting trees barely deals with the quantity, but the essential difference between long term storage in fossils and short term storage in organic material is often missed, and I thought it might be interesting to call this to the attention of HNers. However, apparently I lose karma points for this instead.
- skolor 17y ago
  Its not the content, but the ways its presented that got the downvotes (I would assume). The presentation borders on saying "Don't plant trees, it doesn't help the environment (in the long run)". Yes, you're right, but it is similar to saying: Sadly, using solar power does little to help with the global warming problem. The Sun is only a temporary power source; as soon as the hydrogen runs out it will stop supplying energy to the Earth. Since we use energy, what we really need to do to stop using as much energy. Sadly, this takes a really long time, and is really hard. Hell, you even mention "what we really need to do to restore the carbon cycle is put the carbon back into fossils". How exactly do you propose doing that, other than creating something which fossilizes, like trees?
  - araneae 17y ago
    I don't know how to do it. But if we know it's a problem, then perhaps people will think of ways to do it. Maybe you could bury the tree at the bottom of a mountain somewhere. We should be thinking of ways of perhaps compressing or sequestering organic material to prevent it from reentering the carbon cycle.
    - skolor 17y ago
      Right-o. That requires, first, for you to plant a tree first, to remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it into a short term storage. Now, IANAE, but from what I know the threat of global warming is that it comes with a cascade effect, that as it becomes more of a problem, the natural systems in place start giving way, making it become more of a problem faster (For example, as glaciers and ice fields melt, they release carbon and other gasses that had been locked in the ice, causing more warming). Doing something, anything to put that on hold sounds like a good idea to me. Planting trees may not be the end-all solution to global warming, but it is the best Phase-1 of a long term reduction of carbon in the atmosphere that we have right now. You agree there isn't a current way to go from carbon in atmosphere-> carbon in long term storage (except for the "fake tree" thing, which simply shoves it into depleted oil deposits, which I think is a terrible idea).
euccastro 17y ago
Some trees last hundreds of years. I think that gives us enough time to figure out how to efficiently make diamonds out of CO2. Or something.

by araneae 17y ago

kierank 17y ago

as soon as the tree dies it will go back up into the atmosphere That implies combustion which doesn't occur.

radu_floricica 17y ago
Plus a lot of a tree's mass is in the roots. Wouldn't be surprised if it would be over 50%.
sp332 17y ago
As the tree rots, the bacteria, fungus, etc release a lot of CO2 and methane. Enzymes obviate combustion.
araneae 17y ago
No, it doesn't combust. If you remember, animals exhale CO2. The tree becomes detritus, which gets consumed by detritovores (such as cockroaches), which convert it into CO2.

josefresco 17y ago

so tree is capturing carbon for what, 20, 40, 80 years? And then when it dies it slowly starts releasing some back into the atmosphere? Seems like a better plan than anything we have now.

skolor 17y ago
This also assumes trees are a one-off thing. As far as I know, trees tend to reproduce, and during their lives have a habit of creating more, new trees. I would really like to see government funded sustainable farming initiatives. Some sort of plan which involves creating sustainable (meaning cycling crops over the course of several years, long term plans that create soil that is fertile and usable to continue growing in, and the like) farms, with the intent that they be at least somewhat self-sufficient. I don't know the logistics behind it, but I would think it should be more than possible for large scale, self sufficient farms, using environmentally helpful methods, and planting things that aren't necessarily selected for maximum yield, but for maximizing the (positive) impact on the surrounding environment.
araneae 17y ago
Also, this: http://www.scidev.net/en/news/planting-trees-will-not-cancel-out-climate-change.html http://www.scidev.net/en/news/planting-trees-will-not-cancel...

pyre 17y ago

It's obviously not a long-term plan, because even if the trees were not to die -- and decompose, releasing carbon back into the atmosphere -- we can only plant so many trees. On the other hand, it's really the best thing that we have going right now. Most other plans require the coordination of large groups of people that just don't care enough to do anything. On other words, it's nowhere near a silver bullet, but it's better than nothing.

araneae 17y ago

I have to say that I'm a little bit turned off by the fact that this comment went negative. Not to pull "authority" on all of you, but I'm a graduate student who teaches introductory classes on ecology. This week we're actually teaching this material, and part of what we're teaching is exactly what I said in this comment. The burning of fossil fuels is especially problematic because fossils are a long term sink. Sequestering it in organic material is an extremely temporary (by comparison) solution. I could have gone off on how planting trees barely deals with the quantity, but the essential difference between long term storage in fossils and short term storage in organic material is often missed, and I thought it might be interesting to call this to the attention of HNers. However, apparently I lose karma points for this instead.

skolor 17y ago
Its not the content, but the ways its presented that got the downvotes (I would assume). The presentation borders on saying "Don't plant trees, it doesn't help the environment (in the long run)". Yes, you're right, but it is similar to saying: Sadly, using solar power does little to help with the global warming problem. The Sun is only a temporary power source; as soon as the hydrogen runs out it will stop supplying energy to the Earth. Since we use energy, what we really need to do to stop using as much energy. Sadly, this takes a really long time, and is really hard. Hell, you even mention "what we really need to do to restore the carbon cycle is put the carbon back into fossils". How exactly do you propose doing that, other than creating something which fossilizes, like trees?
- araneae 17y ago
  I don't know how to do it. But if we know it's a problem, then perhaps people will think of ways to do it. Maybe you could bury the tree at the bottom of a mountain somewhere. We should be thinking of ways of perhaps compressing or sequestering organic material to prevent it from reentering the carbon cycle.
  - skolor 17y ago
    Right-o. That requires, first, for you to plant a tree first, to remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it into a short term storage. Now, IANAE, but from what I know the threat of global warming is that it comes with a cascade effect, that as it becomes more of a problem, the natural systems in place start giving way, making it become more of a problem faster (For example, as glaciers and ice fields melt, they release carbon and other gasses that had been locked in the ice, causing more warming). Doing something, anything to put that on hold sounds like a good idea to me. Planting trees may not be the end-all solution to global warming, but it is the best Phase-1 of a long term reduction of carbon in the atmosphere that we have right now. You agree there isn't a current way to go from carbon in atmosphere-> carbon in long term storage (except for the "fake tree" thing, which simply shoves it into depleted oil deposits, which I think is a terrible idea).

euccastro 17y ago

Some trees last hundreds of years. I think that gives us enough time to figure out how to efficiently make diamonds out of CO2. Or something.