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

Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#111

Post by felipeerias »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #25

The problem is with the incentives. We reward organizations for planting trees when we should be rewarding them for growing trees. Anecdotally, paper mills don't seem to have a problem successfully growing monocrop forests on their own properties because they actually have a reason to care about the success of replanting their own land.

Industrial corporations in the EU can offset their carbon emissions (and the associated taxes) by sponsoring the plantation of trees. The calculation of this carbon offset is based on the expected carbon capture of a tree over several decades, even if at the moment it is just a sapling.

This summer a Dutch tree-planting company accidentally started a fire in Spain that burnt a much wider surface of forest than what they had planted. As a local major put it: "they were going to plant 200 hectares and ended up burning 1,000 hectares covered with 50-year old pine trees".

https://www.heraldo.es/noticias/aragon/huesca/2022/07/20/los... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/22/reforestation-... https://landlifecompany.com/news/land-life-statement-july-21...

I wouldn't be surprised if, from the point of view of carbon taxes, the saplings that were burnt in the fire were accounted as having offset carbon emissions just as much if they had lived a full life. Presumably, the new saplings that will be planted on their ashes will be accounted by the same amount.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#112

Post by antisthenes »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #106
antisthenes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Miyawaki model is incredibly labor intensive and requires far more sophistication in monitoring and planting methods than developing countries are usually willing to commit to mass planting projects. 90%+ of these mass planting "1 million trees in 30 seconds" projects is usually little more than putting sticks in the ground, hoping some of them make it, with little regard for survivability, usefulness, tree speci…

It seems like some of the most successful reforestation projects are driven by a few very committed individuals who live on the land and want to see the forest return. Like the case of India's "Forest Man" https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/12/26/572421590/...

Trees are living organisms that need care and help adapting to a changing environment, so I'm not surprised.

The old and magnificent trees we see today in streets and neighborhoods suffer from extreme survivor bias. Many tree species aren't even that large/long-lived as people tend to think about average trees.

There's also a strong correlation between speed of growth and longevity.

Going for the quantity approach that many of these low-effort projects do is little more than just tossing seeds out of a bag onto the ground. In the end you'll get more trees than you had before, but probably not by much, and with varying success.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#114

Post by JumpCrisscross »

felipeerias wrote: post #111
MichaelCollins wrote: post #25

The problem is with the incentives. We reward organizations for planting trees when we should be rewarding them for growing trees. Anecdotally, paper mills don't seem to have a problem successfully growing monocrop forests on their own properties because they actually have a reason to care about the success of replanting their own land.

Industrial corporations in the EU can offset their carbon emissions (and the associated taxes) by sponsoring the plantation of trees. The calculation of this carbon offset is based on the expected carbon capture of a tree over several decades, even if at the moment it is just a sapling. This summer a Dutch tree-planting company accidentally started a fire in Spain that burnt a much wider surface of forest than what t…

> corporations in the EU can offset their carbon emissions (and the associated taxes) by sponsoring the plantation of trees

The carbon offset market is deep with scams [1]. Most have no fix. The problem you mention does: issue offsets for trees buried, i.e. carbon sequestered, not planted.

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/05/10/1024751/carbon-c...

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#115

Post by [deleted] »

ianbicking wrote: post #11

The Miyawaki method [1], which I'm sure has been on HN before, is a very different approach to these projects. When I first read about it, it seemed like a kind of too-good-to-be-true miracle approach, but reading further it's really just a lot of hard work. Site preparation is a huge part of it. This photo gallery [2] gives some sense. It starts with soil testing and soil amendment, I doubt they ever consider the so…

[deleted]

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#116

Post by rinka_singh »

This is an all negative perspective. There are many that succeed too (Caveat: No, I'm not a forest expert but I do travel). I have seen at least 3 examples of Miyawaki forests that have succeeded close to where I live. I've seen some fairly large and successful afforestation efforts too.

While yes, an extremely unbalanced perspective helps us focus on a rather important issue, I do wish the article were a mite more balanced.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#117

Post by Ice_cream_suit »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #90
theptip wrote: post #46

> Not surprisingly, those locals often reacted badly. For example, in northern Malawi, they broke fences and burned a growing forest to get back the common grazing land on which the trees had been planted. In two Nigerian projects, villagers cut all the planted non-fruit trees for firewood, while protecting those that bore fruit. Recommended reading: "Seeing Like A State" by James Scott. The first section on Scientif…

Seeing like a state is a terrific book. It's possible that I learned the idea of forest death from it rather than a college class.[1] The German word for it is waldsterben and there seem to be few English language resources about it.[3] My recollection is that monoculture forests promote forest death. Diversity is critical to a thriving forest. [1] Or both. I was an Environmental Resource Management major. [2] https:…

That you both for that suggestion.

"Seeing Like a State" seems like a fascinating book.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#118

Post by DoreenMichele »

Ice_cream_suit wrote: post #117
DoreenMichele wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing like a state is a terrific book. It's possible that I learned the idea of forest death from it rather than a college class.[1] The German word for it is waldsterben and there seem to be few English language resources about it.[3] My recollection is that monoculture forests promote forest death. Diversity is critical to a thriving forest. [1] Or both. I was an Environmental Resource Management major. [2] https:…

That you both for that suggestion. "Seeing Like a State" seems like a fascinating book.

It was one of the books I picked up after seeing San Francisco for the first time and feeling incredibly inspired. I stopped in a bookstore on the way home and spent about $300 on kind of a home-cooked urban planning self-study course.

I had traditional urban planning type stuff but also more sociopolitical type stuff.

I also bought a book about The Clemente Course.

Seeing like a state is probably the book that made the biggest impression on me.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#119

Post by bpodgursky »

debacle wrote: post #5

Trees tend to fail spectacularly, even for seasoned growers. The site that I bulk purchase seedlings from estimates a failure rate as high as 70% for evergreen plugs if you do everything right . As you move up from seedlings to 3 year old plants, the failure rate drops to 10%, but my real failure rate is probably closer to 30%. The number one reason is too much/too little moisture, with some pests/disease thrown in.…

> A tree planted in "dirt" will be about the same size 3 years later. A (young) tree planted in rich compost can double in size in a year

Rapid growth is not actually good for the longevity of a tree. A tree which grows rapidly (presumably to take advantage of a resource surplus) will be structurally weaker and die at a younger age to wind, pests, etc.

So it's true that planting in compost can accelerate the tree, but there's nothing wrong with planting a tree in "dirt" from a natural perspective (assuming it doesn't outright die from pH balance or lack of water etc).

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#120

Post by smaudet »

theptip wrote: post #52
pstuart wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're spot on with your assessment, the only thing I'd change is that the centralized management does more than funding -- it provides a library of possible projects with expert assistance as needed. Locals still get control and ownership of their efforts but they have help when they want it.

Indeed. Given the starting point, and the major shift in world-view required to do this kind of thing, I think of that library as a "phase 2" kind of thing. First get a few successful projects under our belt, then think about how we can add more leverage. But I strongly agree that the end point to envision is the center acting as a library/facilitator to share knowledge between different groups, rather than The Sourc…

"The Source of Truth" - what harmful notion. Truth simply is, there is no source. Speak for Source of Lies.

Never trust any centralized agency - even if it did honestly represent what was true at some point it cannot hope to be what is true.

Post reply on HN