> There is no one single clever solution to the climate problem. There is. Just stop emitting greenhouse gases.
Now you have worse problems.
A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
71–80 of 180 posts
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#72That only "fixes" climate change as long as the trees continue growing and do not die. When dead, trees release their CO_2 that they've sequestered back into the atmosphere due to decomposition. Therefore, assuming those forests stay around, you've only delayed the problem by sinking a fixed amount of CO_2 away into the living biomass of the trees. The only way to make that a permanent sink would be to biochar the tr…
Well, the main purpose would be to avoid tree death. And even natural death of trees can be allowed considering that an oak lives around 150 years. Regarding what you say about releasing the co2 they have stored, keep in mind that the tree is not a co2 sponge. It takes co2 and transforms a big chunk of it in other carbon-based components useful to the tree. I recommend this article that clears some ideas about trees…
FTR, many tree species can live for hundreds of thousands of years.
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#73I'm burnt out or depressed with my current career (or something else), but at this moment I would happily pivot to spending the rest of my life trying to help nature. How could I create a business or venture that allowed people to make a livable wage while also working to create a balanced ecosystem between human and nature?
Is it even possible to help nature in a way that generates profit for a business? Most things that help, say, a rare fungus or a migratory bird, don’t make money for humans. That’s why we’re in this mess to start with.
I also don’t believe we know how to help nature. It’s too complex. I think most “ventures” just do more harm, possibly including reforestation (are we SURE big, dark forests are good?) I put more trust into “rewinding” projects that involve just leaving things alone, no matter how much it distresses humans to see dead/dying animals and weeds.
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#74That only "fixes" climate change as long as the trees continue growing and do not die. When dead, trees release their CO_2 that they've sequestered back into the atmosphere due to decomposition. Therefore, assuming those forests stay around, you've only delayed the problem by sinking a fixed amount of CO_2 away into the living biomass of the trees. The only way to make that a permanent sink would be to biochar the tr…
I thought about this and had an idea that I don't know if it can work, but I couldn't find any major problem with it. Specifically, what if we start burying dead trees or those who reached peak mass in places where conditions will transform them into coal in 100(00..) of years? That way carbon is captured and stored until we burn them again.
If deforestation is still occurring (net result that we are cutting down more trees than we are planting) then cutting down more trees doesn't solve the problem.
We do in fact need people to just start planting trees.
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#75The core assumption is that 3 billion out of a total of 4.7 billion acres of desert currently existing can be reforested by planting trees and irrigating them for 20 years, after which they will continue growing without irrigation. Is this possible, except for marginal areas bordering the deserts? Aren't most desert areas desert because of very low precipitation? This may be practical for areas such as the example in…
Adding sufficient acreage of forest would "artificially" create more precipitation, no?
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#76Does that series cover eliminating Rupert Murdoch? I know that this is taboo to discuss, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that non-technical solutions to climate change will necessarily include the elimination of those who metaphorically are holding a gun to humanity's head.
While I sympathize with your sentiment a more accurate and less provocative way of saying almost the same thing would be to say that the biggest barriers to dealing with climate change are social and political, and so changing social norms (so corporate behavior as evidenced by Murdoch) becomes unacceptable, and electing politicians who will pass meaningful climate-change laws, is really important.
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#77The core assumption is that 3 billion out of a total of 4.7 billion acres of desert currently existing can be reforested by planting trees and irrigating them for 20 years, after which they will continue growing without irrigation. Is this possible, except for marginal areas bordering the deserts? Aren't most desert areas desert because of very low precipitation? This may be practical for areas such as the example in…
In the article the claim is that the environment changes due to the presence of the forest and results in more precipitation.
i.e. the presence of precipitation and trees are linked. If you remove one you remove the other, and if you add one (trees in this case) you get the other.
Pretty amazing if true.
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#78That only "fixes" climate change as long as the trees continue growing and do not die. When dead, trees release their CO_2 that they've sequestered back into the atmosphere due to decomposition. Therefore, assuming those forests stay around, you've only delayed the problem by sinking a fixed amount of CO_2 away into the living biomass of the trees. The only way to make that a permanent sink would be to biochar the tr…
if you biochar fallen trees and litter, and then bury it, it stays sequestered for a long time. It also improves the soil long term - particularly in sandy soils it helps water retention. Obviously this is much more work that just planting and forgetting though.
> if you biochar fallen trees and litter, and then bury it, it stays sequestered for a long time.
> It also improves the soil long term - particularly in sandy soils it helps water retention.
> Obviously this is much more work that just planting and forgetting though.
If we used cross-laminated timber [1] to construct our buildings instead of concrete, there would be an economical incentive to keep a lot of timber forests around. For additional carbon-negativity (and soil quality!) the timber industry could be required to biochar and bury its litter. This way, without too much government coercion, maybe our building frenzy [2] could end up being carbon negative?
Much like modern diesel engines that make (polluted) air clean(er) [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJa86tErQ
[3] https://newmobility.news/2019/08/28/can-new-diesel-engines-a...
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can continue to plant trees until the end of time.
By end of time, I assume you mean entropic heat death of the universe. In which case no, planting trees will have become impossible trillions of human years previous to this, due to there not being and planets.
I don't mean that. I mean something closer to the end of humans on earth.
Re: A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change
#80Far too little, far too late.
It may have helped fix climate if we had stopped deforestation in 1992 after the first UN climate summit, used only sustainable wood from that moment on and cleared no mature forest for pasture or palm oil. Oh, and started migrating to zero carbon economies when it would have taken a percent or two reduction a year, rather than the throw ourselves off a reduction cliff required now. Thanks politicians!
Right now we're still clear cutting, legally and illegally, mature scruffy ancient forest that provides carbon store, and massive bio diversity. At the same time tree planting campaigns and forestry mainly create limited diversity, or no-diversity monocrop desert (forestry). Typically neat proof of human interference. How many tens of years growing or thousands of hectares planted to equate the mature wood and stored carbon lost around the world every day? How much biodiversity and how many species compared to mature, "nature hewn" forest? Global reforestation projects will destroy more ecosystems... What will be the unintended consequences of foresting deserts and the necessary human activity, irrigation, even desalination? How many more species will go as a consequence?
Now had we created no-development zones around forests, to allow them to expand naturally, in a world not deforesting at ever increasing rate...