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

Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 218 posts

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#171

Post by mikedilger »

iamaelephant wrote: post #131
jerkstate wrote: post #7

I did a rough spreadsheet some time back based on this 1998 EPA carbon sequestration worksheet [1] and found that an average person from a high carbon output country needs about 600-1000 trees to offset their carbon output. There are about 3 trillion trees for a population of 7 billion people for an average of 428 trees per person, so that means you have to make up the delta of about 172 to 572 trees over the course…

New Zealand currently has a programme to plant one billion trees in the next 10 years, about 250 trees per person, so this doesn't seem at all unreasonable. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forestry/plan...

Yes, laudable in theory, but the current government hasn't delivered anything close. They should be at 184 million by now. They claim they are at 110 million. They estimate based on how many seedlings have been sold by nurseries, include seedlings "tranferred", which is a pretty sure way to overestimate. You'd think they would only count trees that the government was involved in planting, not trees that would have been planted anyways, but they take credit for everything anybody does.

They do have a programme to pay land owners for planting trees, but in minumum one-hectare units, and it's financially a loss. I own and live on farmland in NZ. I could turn a hectare into fully native bush and get their maximum one-time payout of $4,000. But the costs of native trees are expensive and the labour to fully plant up a hectare properly is not insubstantial. The $500 top-up payout for fencing doesn't cover the cost of fencing. Then I'd have to give up about $500 per year in farming income, permanently. It would feel good, but there is still a significant financial disincentive.

The government isn't really in a position to increase payouts. Taxes are about as high as the economy can handle and the government has lots of other projects to fund. If this is going to happen, it's going to be on the backs of individuals acting out of their own good will.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#174

Post by Retric »

philipkglass wrote: post #107
aresant wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No easy way to plot this - planting trees to sequester CO2 may or may not have a net positive impact at scale for a variety of reasons: 1) The timescale is very long - a single tree to drive carbon neutrality is MOST optimistically pegged at 40 - 100 years depending on species. With expanding populations planning or guaranteeing execution on that time scale is limited. AKA it's very unlikely that most efforts, unless…

Electricity from solar photovoltaic generation has life cycle emissions 90-95% lower than fossil-derived electricity, per median figures in the IPCC's 2014 tabulation of global warming potential of selected electricity sources. Geothermal, concentrated solar power, nuclear power, and wind power have even lower life cycle emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis... Displacing fossil-deri…

Those emission numbers are based on other carbon sources. Move to electric trucks etc and solar panels represent much lower emissions on their own.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#175

Post by dredds »

Xixi wrote: post #130
aresant wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The articles I linked expand on this and there are many resources to research this. Short of cutting the tree down yourself, hauling it yourself, and then processing & building it: The C02 cost of harvesting, hauling, and processing trees into wood is very costly.

Keep in mind that the current alternative to building with wood is to use concrete, which has a tremendous CO2 cost [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844

We should also look to compare hempcrete or similar lightweight materials with superior insulation qualities; "an un-rendered 30 cm thick hemp concrete wall enables a storage of 36.08 kg of CO2 per m2 [1]."

[1] https://urbannext.net/hemp-concrete/

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#176

Post by IgorPartola »

anthony_doan wrote: post #168
IgorPartola wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding was that trees are not the best way to go about this. Seaweed is best, followed by grass, then trees. To be fair, planting seaweed isn’t as satisfying.

Grass is so terrible. You need to maintain it and it requires so much chemicals especially from Monsanto. It's so much work and money just to maintain grass. I like alternatives like moss or clovers. Even cactus gardens seem better suited.

I am not talking about your lawn, but fields of wild grass.

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#177

Post by Retric »

philipkglass wrote: post #132
aresant wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree. I originally started banging out a comment saying forget the trees, build more nuclear power but didn't want to invite a downvoting brigade, which I effectively walked into anyways :)

Introducing nuclear power in climate discussions tends to cause flamewars because it's often introduced by someone making extreme blanket statements, like "humans cannot be trusted with nuclear power" or "nuclear is the only available solution to climate change." Just mention it as one of the low-emissions alternatives to fossil power. Cite climate-focused organizations for support rather than industry-specific organ…

The problem with Nuclear is it needs huge subsides to be cost competitive with battery backed Wind / Solar or Hydro, even more if you want it to load follow. With just a carbon tax and no specific Nuclear subsidies, Nuclear is rarely a good option.

In theory it seems like a great idea, in practice with decades of 10’s to 100’s of Billions in R&D it’s unlikely to improve that much within the next 5-10 years. (106 Billion and counting from the US government alone: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-...)

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#178

Post by d3ad1ysp0rk »

irrational wrote: post #169
microcolonel wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where do you go to plant trees such that you can be certain the trees won't just be cut down in a few years Your own property, literally anywhere trees can survive.

So... no where? Where I live you either live in an apartment or in a house that is 5 feet away from neighboring houses in all directions. What percentage of the population is rich enough to own empty land that they can plants trees on?

A substantial part of Maine's population...?

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#179

Post by yellowapple »

aresant wrote: post #124
BeefySwain wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is using wood as a building material bad? I would think that putting carbon into our walls and patios would be as good a place as any to keep it out of the atmosphere?

The articles I linked expand on this and there are many resources to research this. Short of cutting the tree down yourself, hauling it yourself, and then processing & building it: The C02 cost of harvesting, hauling, and processing trees into wood is very costly.

If we can get all those steps onto electric power instead of internal combustion, then (assuming the power's coming from renewables, hydroelectric, or nuclear) that should eliminate the issue, right?

Re: Tree planting: Where can I do it and which type is best?

#180

Post by NeedMoreTea »

aresant wrote: post #71
tunesmith wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've gotta get past the argument pattern of "don't reduce consumption; sequester!" and "don't sequester; reduce consumption!" A lot of both are needed. I agree with the point that planting 100 trees should not leave anyone feeling they've done their part. Repeating the math until we're blue in the face is what helps there I guess.

Fair point. But convincing the entire population of the world to set their thermostat 1 degree higher during the summer months would have a 1000x multiple impact on a 40x shorter time scale than if every one of those people planted a tree. The spirit of my comment is that in general people LOVE the path of least resistance. Ask the average person about combatting climate change and their response is "plant more trees…

Trees can keep running for 40-100 years using your figures. Governments can compulsory purchase and designate regions as wilderness or reserve, and require region appropriate planting. Perhaps to resemble former natural forest.

You can't ask people to set their thermostat 1 degree warmer every year for that 40-100 years. You can expect there to be scope for continued tree planting for decades.

Neither is a sole solution, but both are part of a holistic, reasoned and coordinated journey to carbon neutrality.

Post reply on HN