Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by DesiLurker » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

ddxxdd wrote: post #172

bjourne wrote: post #156

I made some rough calculations yesterday and user strainer corrected me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19701879 It would seem that even with his corrections and this article's data capturing carbon isn't feasible. 1.2T trees increases earth's forestation by 40% but only nets us 10 years of emissions. It seems very inefficient in relation to trying to reduce emissions.

It seems to be more cost-effective than forcing everybody- including the poor- to buy brand new Teslas. Assuming that: * It costs $0.50 per tree planted, * trees absorb 1 ton of CO2 each, * Teslas cost $15,000 more than regular cars * Teslas emit 1 gallon of fuel less than regular cars per 25 miles (starting after 50,000 miles: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346... ) * 1 gallon of gas produc…

So then you'd support a kind of carbon credits market for such tree planting scheme?

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

#222

Post by londons_explore » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:17 PM UTC

ryanjshaw wrote: post #113

ChuckMcM wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trees come with a whole bunch of other issues. I have something like 40 trees ranging up to 20m tall. Cleaning up the leaves and branches is a year-round job. Collecting and removing the waste involves time, money and CO2 producing trucks. If not removed promptly, waste left up on my flat roof causes water damage after rains. Heavy storms make me nervous because I've once seen a set of healthy branches large enough t…

In addition, while planting a tree costs only a few dollars, cutting down a 100 ft high tree in an urban space can easily set you back thousands of dollars.

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

#223

Post by gilbetron » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #115

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…

Where do you live where shade trees are a thing?

Where do you live where shade trees are not a thing? Genuinely curious. I've never known someone that didn't know what they were.

I live in Michigan and have four large trees surrounding the house, although we let their branches hang over the house, so 3 or so hours around noon, the house gets no shade.

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

#224

Post by ddxxdd » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

DesiLurker wrote: post #221

ddxxdd wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be more cost-effective than forcing everybody- including the poor- to buy brand new Teslas. Assuming that: * It costs $0.50 per tree planted, * trees absorb 1 ton of CO2 each, * Teslas cost $15,000 more than regular cars * Teslas emit 1 gallon of fuel less than regular cars per 25 miles (starting after 50,000 miles: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346... ) * 1 gallon of gas produc…

So then you'd support a kind of carbon credits market for such tree planting scheme?

I likely would, with caveats.

There could be an even cheaper scheme for climate change mitigation that we haven't thought of (like stimulating plankton growth with iron, for instance).

And it's actually possible that the total cost of allowing climate change to progress unmitigated may actually be cheaper than 50 cents per ton of CO2; creating more fertilizer for farmland and building seawalls may become cheaper 100 years from now than the future growth-adjusted value of the proposed carbon-based tax credits.

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

#225

Post by gpm » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #211

strainer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, fo…

> For example we have yet to see what can happen if a nuclear plant is sabotaged - that's not FUD That's FUD. What are you proposing is going to happen that would be worse? You can't get a nuclear explosion; the fuel isn't weapons grade. You can get a meltdown and a hydrogen explosion, but that is what happened at Chernobyl. It leaves behind a hot mess and a large cleanup bill but hardly anybody dies. Especially if y…

The soviet response to Chernobyl was in many respects phenomenal. They mobilized hundreds of thousands of people to risk their lives to mitigate it.

One effort that stands out as "preventing something much worse" is that there was a risk of a potentially larger secondary explosion from steam buildup. They tunneled under the reactor and injected ~25 tons of liquid nitrogen a day (the tunnel started 6 days after the explosion, and was functional 8 days after the explosion). They had people risk/give their lives swimming in to close valves and pumping water out. Dates from here: http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/

Also, you can absolutely get a nuclear explosion from a reactor, there is some suggestion that Chernobyl might have been a small one in fact (paper): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1...

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

#226

Post by mrec » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #188

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 o…

> We even get visited by some beautiful red foxes from time to time

It's funny how urban adaptation affects perceptions of rarity. I live in fairly-central London and you can hardly set foot outside after dark without tripping over a red fox or three. Out in the countryside they're still pretty wary (with reason, since farmers will shoot them).

Are urban foxes a thing in the US too, or is this still a UK phenomenon?

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

#227

Post by germinalphrase » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

mrec wrote: post #226

duxup wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> We even get visited by some beautiful red foxes from time to time It's funny how urban adaptation affects perceptions of rarity. I live in fairly-central London and you can hardly set foot outside after dark without tripping over a red fox or three. Out in the countryside they're still pretty wary (with reason, since farmers will shoot them). Are urban foxes a thing in the US too, or is this still a UK phenomenon?

Not so much, I think. In the upper Midwest, it’s mostly squirrels and rabbits.

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

#228

Post by lyxsus1 » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:55 PM UTC

14 wrote: post #123

jessriedel wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of global warming and the benefits we've reaped from its cause (cheap power) are both a significant fraction of world GDP. Planting 160 trees per person would be cheap, and even easily do-able by an individual in a few weekends (though it's obviously way more efficient to hire specialists to do it en mass). The total suitable land area needed (more than the area of the USA, by my estimate) is much more likel…

I dislike the US prison system but perhaps we could use prisoners to do it. They could plant hundreds If not thousands within a sentence and one day return to visit the forest they planted.

I like how we instinctively turn to slavery when there's a grand project that becomes vital.

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

#229

Post by mrec » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 10:58 PM UTC

germinalphrase wrote: post #227

mrec wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We even get visited by some beautiful red foxes from time to time It's funny how urban adaptation affects perceptions of rarity. I live in fairly-central London and you can hardly set foot outside after dark without tripping over a red fox or three. Out in the countryside they're still pretty wary (with reason, since farmers will shoot them). Are urban foxes a thing in the US too, or is this still a UK phenomenon?

Not so much, I think. In the upper Midwest, it’s mostly squirrels and rabbits.

We get squirrels too. (Squirrels are awesome.) Rabbits, never.

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

#230

Post by strainer » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 11:01 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #211

strainer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, fo…

> For example we have yet to see what can happen if a nuclear plant is sabotaged - that's not FUD That's FUD. What are you proposing is going to happen that would be worse? You can't get a nuclear explosion; the fuel isn't weapons grade. You can get a meltdown and a hydrogen explosion, but that is what happened at Chernobyl. It leaves behind a hot mess and a large cleanup bill but hardly anybody dies. Especially if y…

"What are you proposing is going to happen that would be worse?"

No offense but if you can't see how Chernobyl or Fukushima could have turned out worse, or that unexpected accidents in other locations could happen and could be worse, you don't understand nuclear power. Its problematic because I expect you have read plenty on it in order to want to defend it in a topic about aforestation.

"Water isn't consumed"

Water resource is consumed, sure it rains again - often far away and into the sea. Fresh water resources are scarce and under pressure in many places, ancient aquifers are drying out, particularly in the US.