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

Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 332 posts

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#181

Post by noja »

Radim wrote: post #169

CO₂ is a precious and much coveted resource in nature. It's predicted to become all sequestered under ground eventually, on a billion-year timescale (making it quite troublesome for life!). More pressingly, when it comes to plant life RIGHT NOW, we're still dangerously close to CO₂ starvation levels. The current ~400 parts-per-million are a good deal healthier than the ~180 ppm we've had throughout Quaternary (which…

CO2 drought? Starvation levels?

What's your point? We need more CO2 because... what?

Edit: I can't help but think your comment was sponsored.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#182

Post by strainer »

iamphilrae wrote: post #177
ajuc wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal…

Here’s a source from Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-... And a quote: “Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1)…

That's just comparing them with coal to sound great. The three major nuclear accidents do not represent the worst which nuclear plants are capable of. For example we have yet to see what can happen if a nuclear plant is sabotaged - that's not FUD its a real vulnerably of the technology and is a reason why they incur constant exceptional security as well as safety costs. They consume alot of water resource as well, for cooling.

Thankfully its an academic debate now anyway, because solar and wind prices are already much cheaper with no end to their continued improvement in sight.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#183

Post by noja »

thinkingemote wrote: post #85

Just an aside, if you see campaigns such as "we have planted 2 trees for each widget you buy" you should understand that this is often in a forestry program where the new trees often get pruned or removed to make room. So a claim like "we planted 10k trees last year" doesnt mean much at all. the majority of trees planted in forestry do not survive. In terms of carbon a forestry program is neutral at best just replaci…

> It's not the planting that counts, it's the leaving the trees alone.

And that's what's missing from the title (the "if we stop cutting down so many trees" part)

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#184

Post by drawnwren »

noja wrote: post #181
Radim wrote: post #169

CO₂ is a precious and much coveted resource in nature. It's predicted to become all sequestered under ground eventually, on a billion-year timescale (making it quite troublesome for life!). More pressingly, when it comes to plant life RIGHT NOW, we're still dangerously close to CO₂ starvation levels. The current ~400 parts-per-million are a good deal healthier than the ~180 ppm we've had throughout Quaternary (which…

CO2 drought? Starvation levels? What's your point? We need more CO2 because... what? Edit: I can't help but think your comment was sponsored.

Op provided a clear explanation of their argument. I don't think they argued that we need more CO2 just provided an interesting perspective on a different time scale. No need for ad hominem attacks.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#185

Post by nashashmi »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #91
Panino wrote: post #46

A good way to take part in increasing the number of trees, if you own your own home, is to improve the state of your shade trees. The trees absorb atmospheric carbon while also reducing home temperatures in summer, which in turn reduces the electricity people use for cooling. (And you save money!!) So a shade tree is a particularly effective way to reduce both atmospheric CO2 and electric bills. You might think of sh…

Cuts into my solar power generation through. So its a trade-off. Interestingly enough, from an energy production perspective the solar panels on the roof result in more reduction in CO2 than the trees do.

So does that mean cut down the forest and put up solar?

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#187

Post by antaviana »

rebuilder wrote: post #142
maelito wrote: post #70

> Trees are “our most powerful weapon in the fight against climate change” No, our most powerful weapon against climate change is reducing human GHG emissions.

You have to find a way to do that, though, in a way that doesn't result in a revolt.

It's a difficult endeavor. It involves greatly reducing human population, and both quick (war, massive deaths) and slow (fewer births than deaths) come each with their own set of issues.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#188

Post by duxup »

Panino wrote: post #46

A good way to take part in increasing the number of trees, if you own your own home, is to improve the state of your shade trees. The trees absorb atmospheric carbon while also reducing home temperatures in summer, which in turn reduces the electricity people use for cooling. (And you save money!!) So a shade tree is a particularly effective way to reduce both atmospheric CO2 and electric bills. You might think of sh…

I'm fortunate enough to have a pond and some marshy area bordering my house.

My neighbors sometimes wondered why I don't trim it up and make it look "nice" right up to the water like some folks do.

I like it wild, lots of trees and wildlife. I even let the wildness take a bit more of the yard than when i moved in. A few big trees quickly sprung up, no maintenance (compared to a yard) it looks great wild.

Perhaps if only out of laziness (yard work is kinda a pain). A few other neighbors who were maliciously caring for their lawn right up to the marsh (well the area you can do that to legally) have done the same as I have and we've got a much larger wild area now. It's full of blue jays, finches, cardinals, rabbits, owl visitors. We even get visited by some beautiful red foxes from time to time (i suspect quite often but they are very sneaky).

The kids mostly play in the front yard anyway where I actually bother to do more yard work to make it looks nice so a big lawn in the back makes no sense if nobody is really enjoying it.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#189

Post by seraphsf »

taf2 wrote: post #179

I hope this is the American version of a trillion and not the British.. googles how many billions are in a trillion and got back “In the American system one billion is 1,000,000,000 and a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 so one trillion is one thousand times one billion. In the British system one billion is 1,000,000,000,000 and one trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 so one trillion is one million times one billion.”

No longer true, the divergence is archaic.

“In British English, a billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.

The same sort of change has taken place with the meaning of trillion. In British English, a trillion used to mean a million million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000). Nowadays, it's generally held to be equivalent to a million million (1,000,000,000,000), as it is in American English.”

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/how-many-is-a-bill...

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#190

Post by jarvelov »

noja wrote: post #181
Radim wrote: post #169

CO₂ is a precious and much coveted resource in nature. It's predicted to become all sequestered under ground eventually, on a billion-year timescale (making it quite troublesome for life!). More pressingly, when it comes to plant life RIGHT NOW, we're still dangerously close to CO₂ starvation levels. The current ~400 parts-per-million are a good deal healthier than the ~180 ppm we've had throughout Quaternary (which…

CO2 drought? Starvation levels? What's your point? We need more CO2 because... what? Edit: I can't help but think your comment was sponsored.

I think you need to read the comment you're responding to again. OP is not arguing for anything, rather pointing out that different plants evolved to more effectively handle low CO2 environments.
Post reply on HN