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

Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

gu.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 153 posts

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#101

Post by ajuc »

My main problem with planting trees is - you're not planting seeds, but seedlings. These seedlings were already growing elsewhere, you just burned some fuel to transport them to another place.

Additionally at least in my region whenever I leave a plot of land unattended for a few years - tree appear on it. If you leave it for more than a decade it becomes a forest.

So - it seems the important part is assigning land for forests and not bothering the trees that will grow there. The tree-planting is optional.

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#103

Post by Night_Thastus »

michaelwww wrote: post #100

I don't understand people who like to point out the planting trees is not always as green as people think it is. Planting trees is always good in my book. We can plant trees and do the better thing. "quitting smoking is not always an effective way of avoiding cancer" "walking in nature is not always effective in preventing heart attack" "quitting gambling is not always an effective way of avoiding bankruptcy"

If done incorrectly, it can cause ecological harm and provide little benefit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just that it should be done carefully.

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#104

Post by michaelwww »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #103
michaelwww wrote: post #100

I don't understand people who like to point out the planting trees is not always as green as people think it is. Planting trees is always good in my book. We can plant trees and do the better thing. "quitting smoking is not always an effective way of avoiding cancer" "walking in nature is not always effective in preventing heart attack" "quitting gambling is not always an effective way of avoiding bankruptcy"

If done incorrectly, it can cause ecological harm and provide little benefit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just that it should be done carefully.

That's just common sense. You don't waste your time planting trees where they won't grow or will crowd out existing plants.

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#105

Post by Night_Thastus »

michaelwww wrote: post #104
Night_Thastus wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If done incorrectly, it can cause ecological harm and provide little benefit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just that it should be done carefully.

That's just common sense. You don't waste your time planting trees where they won't grow or will crowd out existing plants.

Something something about common sense isn't all that common. :) China has had some issues with planting absolutely massive monocultures that end up looking nice on paper but being bad in the long run.

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#106

Post by michaelwww »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #105
michaelwww wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just common sense. You don't waste your time planting trees where they won't grow or will crowd out existing plants.

Something something about common sense isn't all that common. :) China has had some issues with planting absolutely massive monocultures that end up looking nice on paper but being bad in the long run.

The CCP aren't exactly experts on the environment. They are quite careless about disposing toxic waste in rivers. A friend of mine told me this story recently. While he was working for Apple, he visited a factory and the owner started crying in his presence how Apple was telling them they would be dropped if they didn't stop polluting and he said it was too late, that the land they were on was toxic and Apple dropping them would put hundreds out of work.

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#107

Post by quixoticelixer- »

westurner wrote: post #4

"Hemp twice as effective at capturing carbon as trees, UK researcher says" (2021) https://hempindustrydaily.com/hemp-twice-as-effective-at-cap... : > “Industrial hemp absorbs between 8 to 15 tonnes of CO2 per hectare (3 to 6 tonnes per acre) of cultivation.” > Comparatively, forests capture 2 to 6 tonnes of carbon per hectare (0.8 to 2.4 tonnes per acre), depending on the region, number of years of growth, type of tr…

> > “Industrial hemp absorbs between 8 to 15 tonnes of CO2 per hectare (3 to 6 tonnes per acre) of cultivation.”

> Comparatively, forests capture 2 to 6 tonnes of carbon per hectare (0.8 to 2.4 tonnes per acre), depending on the region, number of years of growth, type of trees and other factors, Shah said.

Per hectare PER YEAR. Trees can store much much more carbon per hectare.

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#108

Post by quixoticelixer- »

samatman wrote: post #18
i5heu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tonnes of carbon per hectare is not relevant. What you need is tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. We don't have enough space to let these plants be there, we need to convert them into coal and throw it back into the mines.

The efficient thing to do is render them into charcoal, yes. Biochar is a great soil amendment, and doesn't oxidize over decades or even centuries, depending. Putting it back in the mines is an option, if we ever need to stop rebuilding topsoil, which is itself getting urgent.

Biochar is also intensive and only converts a relatively small amount of that carbon into stable charcoal.

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#109

Post by quixoticelixer- »

westurner wrote: post #91
orthecreedence wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought trees were somewhat ideal because the carbon sequestered in them can be used as long-lived lumber. If the kelp sequesters carbon but then it gets released immediately when it decomposes or someone eats it, then it doesn't really solve the problem. We need to be putting carbon back into the ground where we got it, or at least converting into forms where it lives a long time on the surface (decades or centuri…

> I thought trees were somewhat ideal because the carbon sequestered in them can be used as long-lived lumber. This is why hempcrete is ideal. But hemp, by comparison, doesn't result in a root-bound tree farm for wind break and erosion control; hemp can be left down to return nutrients to the soil or for soil remediation as it's a very absorbent plant (that draws e.g. heavy metals out of soil and into the plant)

Why hempcrete when you could use wood?

> Hemp can be left down to return nutrients to the soil or for soil remediation as it's a very absorbent plant (that draws e.g. heavy metals out of soil and into the plant)

It won't remove heavy metals from the soil if you leave it there. You also can't turn it into a product if you leave it there.

Re: Planting trees not always an effective way of binding carbon dioxide

#110

Post by quixoticelixer- »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #67

Planting monocultures of trees is probably not ideal for plenty of reasons. Maybe there is some argument for re-wilding, allowing land to return to its natural (or as natural as it can given the proliferation of non-native species in the adjacent area).

Planting monoculture also has big advantages
Post reply on HN