If only every person in the world could plant roughly 150 trees...
I mean, this is a great conclusion, but what are we supposed to do with it?
Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
231–240 of 332 posts
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
All the grand projects of the past few centuries were based on it. Why change a winning strategy?
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ex…
> 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.
A larger conventional explosion would have been linearly worse, not worse rising to a separate category of problem.
> 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)
This is not what I'm referring to. It's one thing to have a "nuclear explosion" in the sense that the reaction generates enough heat to cause the rapid expansion of gasses which is technically an "explosion".
What I'm referring to is the sort of exponential chain reaction that happens in a nuclear weapon, resulting in something on that scale. You have to design for that on purpose to get it. The density and geometry has to be exactly right.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you prove that or back that up with some facts?
I can tell you how I reason to it. According to many sources, but I will cite this one[1] a single tree converts about 50 lbs of CO2 in a year. There are three trees on my property, a city tree (planted by the city) and two Birch trees planed by the original developer. All are deciduous so lose leaves in the winter but we'll give them full credit anyway, so call it 150 lbs of CO2 a year. My rooftop solar system nomin…
Good reasoning! I agree with the basic premise - but I don't think you can ignore the CO2 cost to make a solar panel, vs to use one. A tree reduces CO2 as it's being 'built'. A solar panel requires many materials that are refined through various industrial processes - likely some of which produce CO2 - not withstanding the transportation CO2 cost. That all being said, I don't mean to disparage anyone who uses solar panels - and if you already have them (sunk cost) - less trees seems about right, to reduce carbon footprint.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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.
I can't help but notice the lack of specific examples or explanations of any kind.
> 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.
Ancient aquifers are drying out as a result of unsustainable resource management and climate change. Nuclear power helps with both of these, the first by providing power for desalination and the second by reducing carbon emissions. The amount of water it evaporates for cooling by comparison is a drop in the bucket. Also, the cooling can be done with seawater to begin with.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#236A 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, uh, generate the power somewhere other than on shady roofs?
Seriously, I don't get the weird obsession with rooftop PV as if it's the only way to be green. PV is great, but, it doesn't work for every house. Personally, I have big oaks out front helping block passive solar windows in the summer, and the peak of my roof runs north-south so cell mounting would be tricky. That doesn't mean I can't get clean energy, it just means I buy it from a utility company, who are buying it from my neighbor's house where the orientation and canopy placement makes sense to do PV.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Water resource is consumed, sure it rains again...
And sometimes ocean water is rained back on land. Hurray, water cycle!
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like how we instinctively turn to slavery when there's a grand project that becomes vital.
All the grand projects of the past few centuries were based on it. Why change a winning strategy?
Well, we have better means for automation now. But I'm just fascinated how quickly that solution pops up in such discussions as soon as it's convenient.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#239Earlier 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?
We have coyotes in many suburban areas.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#240A 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…
Reminda me of flying into Georgia as part of a trip leg. Much of the surrounding area looked like it was a suburban area overlaid on a forest or what modernn fantasy elves or something as houses were trqnsplanted to modern America - it was so filled with trees - given the heat and history it makes sense and was even oddly beautiful from the sky.
Really I think part of the cultural problem with home design environmentally - aside from the density issues is that so many don't even try to adapt to the environment and do daft things like trying to grow lush water thirsty grasses in the desert or cut away trees in areas that really need the drainage. They often do the equivalent of going around with a brazier of burning coals at 50F instead of putting on a jacket.