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

Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#121

Post by Fargren »

__sy__ wrote: post #54
tcgv wrote: post #50

> Empress trees (...) absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre. In 2016, U.S. GHG emissions were 20.15 metric tons CO2-equivalent per person[1]. So basically each american would have to cultivate about 0.196 acre of empress trees (792 sq meters, or 8522 sq foot) to become carbon neutral. [1] http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-f...

I also did a similar back-of-the-envelop calculation the moment I saw this 103 tons per acre figures. Global CO2 emissions: ~40GT/year Area required: ~600K square miles This is approximately the size of the entire state of Alaska. Every year.

There is not one solution for Global Warming and CO2 emissions. No silver bullet, just as in software. This is one more tool, which needs to be used when appropriate. But we also need better legislation, technological improvements, and changes in consumption behavior, locally and worldwide. If we look at each of those things and do the math, the answer will be "it's not enough" or "it's too expensive". We mustn't let that be a showstopper. Of course some solutions are really not viable at all and should be ignored in favor of others, but every solution that helps enough (for some definition of enough) needs to be pursued.

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#122

Post by devb »

brg1007 wrote: post #62

Does anyone knows the scientifical name for the tree pictured in the article ?

Paulownia tomentosa. Known in my area as the princess tree, but also goes by royal paulownia, foxglove tree, kiri, and empress tree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_tomentosa

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#124

Post by jacobolus »

JudgeWapner wrote: post #109
Brain_Thief wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if this is the kind of answer you were looking for, but Elizabeth Warren was very successful in her efforts to get the CFPB off the ground, much to the displeasure of the financial sector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_... . It's true that under the Trump administration the bureau's behavior is being...modified...but it was quite a success when running as originally intended…

ok, they created a bureau, not a "rip consumers off and your executives go to jail (viz. wells fargo, HSBC...)" law. Great convictions are a start. but in order for them to actually pass legislation , they need other congress members to vote for them. and that's where the dirty tricks start (I wont vote for your X unless you vote for my Y, etc). I guess I'm contradicting myself a bit, because I said "name one" withou…

This is a misunderstanding how how government works. You need to have some kind of institution in order to get anything enforced. Building up institutions full of competent people with a mandate to craft and enforce carefully designed regulations and respond to changing circumstances is the way to attack these kinds of big problems.

(Of course, institutions can only be so effective when their leadership is unlawfully replaced with incompetent industry hacks by the next administration; the only way to tackle that is with higher-level political action: court fights, impeachment, and ultimately elections.)

Just laws on the books doesn’t accomplish anything. There are already plenty of laws against ripping off consumers, but corporatist ideologues in control of the US Supreme Court have spent the last several decades watering down the potential liability via increasingly tendentious reinterpretations.

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#126

Post by namirez »

This can be helpful, but it's still a shortsighted solution. There are two types of carbon cycle on the planet: the short-term and the long-term [1].

The only natural mechanisms to transfer carbon between the two cycles are the planet's tectonic and volcanic activities. This has changed in recent history and we are constantly extracting carbon buried underground (long cycle) and release it into the atmosphere (short cycle). Capturing the atmospheric carbon into trees can be helpful, but it still remains on the surface.

The real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels altogether.

[1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#127

Post by thinkcontext »

tcgv wrote: post #50

> Empress trees (...) absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre. In 2016, U.S. GHG emissions were 20.15 metric tons CO2-equivalent per person[1]. So basically each american would have to cultivate about 0.196 acre of empress trees (792 sq meters, or 8522 sq foot) to become carbon neutral. [1] http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-f...

You can't count all 103 tons. The Empress wood is really just substituting for other wood that grows more slowly and less efficiently. So, if you grew Empress trees that yielded 10M board feet, there would be less of some other tree grown. Since the Empress is so efficient you could use less land to grow those 10M board feet worth of trees. And if that land which you wind up not needing to grow plantation trees on instead becomes undisturbed forest, then you could count that portion as a net reduction in carbon emissions.

It also possible that Empress is so efficient that the market for wood expands more than it would otherwise. Say you use more wood to replace concrete in buildings [1]. That would also count as a reduction. But in neither scenario would you be able to count all 103 tons per acre per year.

A confounding factor, can it really compete on a mass scale with existing lumber?

> Paulownia trees take a lot of work to manage. They require pruning twice a year to establish a clear timber trunk. They need particular growing conditions, and don’t like wet feet or strong winds. [2]

Is this why the industry is not already growing the tree?

[1] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190717-climate-change-wood...

[2] https://thisnzlife.co.nz/how-a-small-waikato-farm-harnesses-...

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#128

Post by Timothycquinn »

There are very limited cases where growing trees for carbon sequestration purposes is a net benefit for the planet. Yes, there are places where land is un-utilised, and water is sufficient but it's often better for the environment to allow wild plants grow so wildlife can flourish. Here is a very good article by the respected Bob McDonald speaks to this topic: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trees-carbon-emissions-bo...

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#129

Post by JudgeWapner »

jacobolus wrote: post #124
JudgeWapner wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok, they created a bureau, not a "rip consumers off and your executives go to jail (viz. wells fargo, HSBC...)" law. Great convictions are a start. but in order for them to actually pass legislation , they need other congress members to vote for them. and that's where the dirty tricks start (I wont vote for your X unless you vote for my Y, etc). I guess I'm contradicting myself a bit, because I said "name one" withou…

This is a misunderstanding how how government works. You need to have some kind of institution in order to get anything enforced. Building up institutions full of competent people with a mandate to craft and enforce carefully designed regulations and respond to changing circumstances is the way to attack these kinds of big problems. (Of course, institutions can only be so effective when their leadership is unlawfully…

you misunderstand how enforcement works. It's done via law enforcement agencies that exist already. It doesn't need a special new "bureau" for each type of rule. If you don't believe me that there are law enforcement agencies, I can show you how to summon them very easily.

Now, the question is, why don't these agencies enforce the same laws against corporations? That's the premise of my initial comment, which you also misunderstood.

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#130

Post by peacetreefrog »

corneliusphi1 wrote: post #91

They are suggesting scam like levels of profit: https://worldtree.info/investment/ 25k -> 355k in 10 years is at least 29% year over year return. That seems... improbable.

The profit is all based on lumber sales too. If profits really were that high it seems like capital would flow in until there were so many of these trees that prices would go down (though I'd imagine they're a small part of the global lumber market), especially if you can only use their wood for a limited number of things.

On the other hand, if they really do such a great job storing carbon, seems like there is potential for them to make money on the fact people are willing to pay to offset their emissions.

Post reply on HN