Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 218 posts

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#141

Post by bamboozled »

aresant wrote: post #36
jerkstate wrote: post #7

I did a rough spreadsheet some time back based on this 1998 EPA carbon sequestration worksheet [1] and found that an average person from a high carbon output country needs about 600-1000 trees to offset their carbon output. There are about 3 trillion trees for a population of 7 billion people for an average of 428 trees per person, so that means you have to make up the delta of about 172 to 572 trees over the course…

No easy way to plot this - planting trees to sequester CO2 may or may not have a net positive impact at scale for a variety of reasons: 1) The timescale is very long - a single tree to drive carbon neutrality is MOST optimistically pegged at 40 - 100 years depending on species. With expanding populations planning or guaranteeing execution on that time scale is limited. AKA it's very unlikely that most efforts, unless…

Ok, so what ?

I would say in 40 years we’re going to be in a much much worse situation so is your argument don’t bother ? Else we should do both, plant a trillion trees and replace fossil fuels and civilisation might be ok?

Sorry but it just seems like you’re trying to make this a negative idea, when it’s a clearly positive thing outside of just sequestering carbon, there are other areas of the eco system improved by having more trees.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#142

Post by tfha »

CalRobert wrote: post #140
jerkstate wrote: post #7

I did a rough spreadsheet some time back based on this 1998 EPA carbon sequestration worksheet [1] and found that an average person from a high carbon output country needs about 600-1000 trees to offset their carbon output. There are about 3 trillion trees for a population of 7 billion people for an average of 428 trees per person, so that means you have to make up the delta of about 172 to 572 trees over the course…

That's actually way, way less than I'd have thought. 500 trees isn't all that much, really. A nlick of 25x20 trees? What is that, an acre? (Genuinely asking... Giant sequoias will be different from sitka spruce)

An acre is 40,000 square feet. So 25x20 means you get one tree every 9 feet in both directions.

That's pretty dense for a large tree.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#143

Post by TeMPOraL »

ryanmercer wrote: post #122
TeMPOraL wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, we could skip the hole drilling part, and set up shop near abandoned mines? That turns the idea from expensive to relatively trivial to do.

If/where suitable mines exist, railways may still exist and might be feasible from a carbon standpoint with the newer diesel locomotives or using an electric locomotive. That said, you aren't going to make a considerably dent in the CO2 emitted in a given time period doing this. Used in combination with dozens of other things though...

I'd imagine many such plants deployed around the world. I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere close to a complete solution, but it's the easiest way to start doing carbon sequestration I can think of.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#144

Post by quixoticelixer- »

aresant wrote: post #124
BeefySwain wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is using wood as a building material bad? I would think that putting carbon into our walls and patios would be as good a place as any to keep it out of the atmosphere?

The articles I linked expand on this and there are many resources to research this. Short of cutting the tree down yourself, hauling it yourself, and then processing & building it: The C02 cost of harvesting, hauling, and processing trees into wood is very costly.

But is that any different for any other material like steel or concrete?

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#145

Post by quixoticelixer- »

Skunkleton wrote: post #104
fovc wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So for a one time $600 donation ($1/tree [1]) I can be a carbon neutral person for life? Seems like a bargain. Am I missing something? [1] https://www.nationalforests.org/get-involved/tree-planting-p...

I am not an expert (even an armchair expert), but I have to imagine it couldn't be that simple. When the trees die, they need to either be replaced, or self-replace. That means the land they are planted on needs to be protected. Further, when the trees die, they will release a portion of the sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere. I wonder what percentage is re-released? Does this imply that we need an ever-growing…

It takes a long time for trees to die (100+ years). The problem here is that it usually takes more than a dollar to grow a tree

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#146

Post by quixoticelixer- »

ars wrote: post #81
Jolter wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the buried wood would decompose. Decomposing wood releases its stored carbon as carbon dioxide, which will slowly evaporate through the covering dirt. One scheme that actually would work is to convert the wood to coal, then burying it. That could be done without adding any energy by using old-fashioned methods for charcoal burning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal_burner Because charcoal is chemic…

> No, because the buried wood would decompose. Only if there is water. Bury it deep enough, or protect it from water (i.e. like a landfill).

Oxygen is much more important than water for decomposition.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#147

Post by quixoticelixer- »

pvaldes wrote: post #74
dx87 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an article posted recently that said the best way to increase the co2 uptake is by cutting down the fully grown trees and planting new trees. Full grown trees don't absord as much co2 as a tree that is still growing, and the needles that some trees drop make the ground acidic, preventing new trees from growing. The problem is that you have to find something to do with all the wood so the captured co2 doesn'…

> Full grown trees don't absord as much co2 as a tree that is still growing This does not seem logical. Two cars emit more C02 than one car. Two leaves will absorb more CO2 than one leaf. A 2m young tree will never be able to consum so many CO2 as its older 40m high grandparent with a x10000 mass (mass that must be maintained).

The amount of CO2 that mature trees use is also higher though. As in while they sequester more CO2 they also burn more CO2 through respiration.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#148

Post by avip »

tunesmith wrote: post #65
tempguy9999 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This got voted down in a hurry. Every point seems valid and robust, so why?

I didn't downvote, but I suspect those counterpoints are second-order and very minor compared to the sequestration rates of a tree itself. I can't bring myself to believe that because of those counterpoints, every new tree on average sequesters zero carbon. The important stat is on average, how much carbon does each new tree sequester; that's what drives the models.

Is your suspicion based on facts? Love of trees?

I'm pretty confident OP up there also loves trees. But we're at a point where we need to calculate efforts and allocate resources wisely. Maybe we need fewer forests and more nuclear. idk.

I know for a fact every tree I can plant with my bare hands would be carbon negative, because I did the math.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#149

Post by quixoticelixer- »

tunesmith wrote: post #57

I don't see how 1.5 billion trees is enough to offset the UK's carbon emission rate. If you go by a tree sequestering a ton of carbon over a 40 year lifetime, and the UK emitting 368 megatons per year... you're sequestering on average 37.5 million tons per year (less when they're young, more when they're old), which is only one tenth of what the UK emits in one year. Plant 15 billion trees and then you're carbon neut…

Planting trees can only ever be part of the solution, but it gives you time to greatly reduce net CO2 emissions while you figure out how to reduce gross CO2 emissions effectively.

And out of all countries the UK is the one of the few that could actually plant half it's land area in trees.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#150

Post by quixoticelixer- »

carapace wrote: post #58

Also we should stop cutting down the existing forests. Brazil and Canada have both been in the news recently for clear cutting their rainforests (yes, CA has inland rainforest!)

Canada almost always replaces their forests.

Brazil is different they are being cleared for agriculture but it is hard to tell them they can't clear forest to become rich when most of the rich world did that before them.

Post reply on HN