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

121–130 of 139 posts

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#121

Post by Brajeshwar »

As mentioned in one of the other comments here, we have come to the realization that the last-mile growers are not incentivized enough, sometimes not at all, to "maintain" the trees till they can sustain themselves.

The government and public authorities will sign a plan; then it goes down to multiple intermediaries, and by the time it reaches those planting the trees get little to care. It is rampant with corruption and fraud. If I have to put in numbers, here is an idea -- if there is $1 available for every tree to be planted, anyone in direct benefit at the final step gets less than 10¢. Those organizations and people "shouting" about planting trees goes on to the next plantation project, and it goes on.

I have been involved with and have invested in nurturing an ecosystem in a remote corner of India. I have got the involvement of the locals, and they know what trees/plants to grow that will benefit not just in sucking in CO2 but bears fruit that the locals can leverage. The idea is to have a tangible outcome from the trees that we can create a circular economy and treat the Climate actions as a good side-effect. The locales have no clue and don't even have enough to survive to care about Climate Change.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#122

Post by beezlewax »

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…

Maybe they should plant in areas where people aren't struggling to make ends meet. Plenty of deforestation has happened all over Europe for example.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#123

Post by hoseja »

All you need to do is stop cutting the plant life. If a forest can grow there, it will. Planting trees is extremely dumb, they are already optimized to spread themselves! Also, you can't really plant mature forests; pioneer species need to grow there first.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#124

Post by kilotaras »

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.

"Modern principles of economics" start with great anecdote how British Government changing payment from £/prisoner boarded to £/prisoner delivered reduced death rate on Australia convict ships from ~30% to less than 1%.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#125

Post by ZeroGravitas »

This is one of the "earnest environmentslist thinks we can do better" articles that are so popular with the "see, it was a hoax all along" crowd.

Within the intended audience, this is a call for stricter standards to ensure this is done well and achieves its aims. Outside, for people who just read the headline, it's taken as further evidence that it's all BS. A fake solution to a fake problem, both pushed by evil people.

I'm not sure what you can do about this, climate change deniers are not famous for their appreciation of nuance, but we should probably take note of it anyway, otherwise you end up with people with very different opinions thinking they are agreeing when they say "this is terrible!". And nerds seem extra vulnerable to being sold this kind of know-it-all, "well, actually", cynicism for some reason.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#127

Post by lupire »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #39
Lendal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist. Unfortunately the arborists in my town are incentivized to get me to pay their company to cut my trees down and replace them with new ones every 10-15 years or so. We really just need more foresters, with a broader mission that extends beyond simply government-owned park land, who can hel…

Can you expand on your arborist conflict of interest. Are they all dishonest or can you simply ask what the expected lifetime of the tree would be?

It's just a a poster being dramatic. Arborists don't intentionally push to chop down tree that aren't overgrown relative to the space available to them.

The problem is that people like big trees and big houses, and they aren't compatible long term.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#128

Post by RunSet »

superchroma wrote: post #2

" There is no anti-tree lobby " There absolutely is. In my country, logging companies release statements complaining bitterly about effects to industry when new areas of land are protected from logging by the government. They equally are quite happy to quietly log ancient trees when allowed. Just because people don't march around with their agenda printed on a badge doesn't mean they don't exist.

> Needless to say, the logging industry was not happy about The Lorax. The book was banned from many schools and libraries near thriving timber communities. Timber industry groups even sponsored a rebuttal book, called The Truax, which helped kids understand the necessity of harvesting timber.

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/the-environmental-messa...

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#129

Post by carride »

This reminded me of this biodegradable plant box a company makes to support tree plantings which will not have future water and nutrients supplied. A Shell oil project used the boxes in an Argentina arid steppe. Was interesting to me in their 2018 write-up. They have not yet updated the results. https://www.groasis.com/en/projects/argentina-the-unconventi...

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#130

Post by PicassoCTs »

hutzlibu wrote: post #91
PicassoCTs wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats the problem with all these projects though, they are situation brittle, depending on a situation not changing for the worse and a constant economic drip keeping them alive. The actual solution would be to saturate humans need for firewood and material - by drone planting the only plant that could keep up, survive and thrive, with it - Variations of genetically modified Bamboo.The past is gone, it cant be restor…

"The actual solution would be to saturate humans need for firewood and material - by drone planting the only plant that could keep up, survive and thrive, with it - Variations of genetically modified Bamboo" Bamboo needs lots of water, and I am unaware of a modified version that does not, so is not really suitable in many areas. How about low tech solar cookers instead?

Which provide a meal in the midst of the day, while its custom to eat in the cooler evenings. Concept failed. Sorry, my uncle tried to convince people of that in africa. Also watched those funny conflicts between nomads and farmers..
Post reply on HN