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

291–300 of 332 posts

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

#291

Post by ip26 »

ncmncm wrote: post #261
ai_ia wrote: post #7

I wonder if desert soil can be gradually converted to make the land fertile. That would definitely be helpful to convert a lot of land to plant trees which is currently of no particular use. Any research or innovation on that front ?

The Sahara desert is already being reclaimed at a remarkable rate by the people living at its edge, just to get more farmland for themselves. The more trees you have, the more precipition is collected. Many places we think of as ancient deserts were climax forests in historical times, such as Petra. It became desert when too many trees were cut.

Ahem, how about the Sonoran?

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

#292

Post by ip26 »

filleokus wrote: post #77

My gut reaction to suggestions like this one is that it seems so hard to do stuff that is as geographically distributed as this. I mean, to plant a billion trees we need to find suitable locations that have an enormous area (twice the US per some comment here). The odds, I'm guessing, are that this will be spread among many/all the continents over multiple countries, involving so many local stakeholders and potential…

At this scale I think is where you must use distributed actors, which in turn implies you should be using economics. Name a price for each tree, establish quality control (inspection, approved list of species, etc) and let the billions of people on the planet figure the rest out.

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

#293

Post by ridiculous_fish »

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…

Can you elaborate on "improve the state" of the shade trees? What does this entail?

Also do you recommend any resources for a beginner to get started on the fruit trees? Soil prep, watering schedule, etc.

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

#294

Post by ip26 »

gameswithgo wrote: post #133

Until those trees die, then its all back again. Trees are just a buffer, and how much co2 would be produced mobilizing the planet to plant 1.2 trillion trees?

Or they seed out (or are replaced by humans). A forest can hold carbon for as long as it is allowed to propagate. There is no permanent carbon sink, see peat bog fires.

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

#295

Post by oska »

strainer wrote: post #269
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pr…

"I can't help but notice the lack of specific examples or explanations of any kind" Because its so simple as saying, "the wind COULD have blown the fukushima fallout southwards over Tokyo instead of relatively promptly into the Pacific." A nuclear accident COULD deliver fallout to a highly populated area that cant be evacuated in time. A nuclear accident COULD generate much more fallout than Fukushima or Chernobyl. H…

To add to your examples, there was the very real possibility with Fukushima that Tokyo would have had to be evacuated. This was seriously considered at the highest levels of the Japanese government (i.e. the PM and cabinet):

> The 400-page report, due to be released later this week, also describes a darkening mood at the prime minister’s residence as a series of hydrogen explosions rocked the plant on March 14 and 15. It says Mr. Kan and other officials began discussing a worst-case outcome if workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were evacuated. This would have allowed the plant to spiral out of control, releasing even larger amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere that would in turn force the evacuation of other nearby nuclear plants, causing further meltdowns.

> The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a “demonic chain reaction” of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south.

> “We would lose Fukushima Daini, then we would lose Tokai,” Mr. Edano is quoted as saying, naming two other nuclear plants. “If that happened, it was only logical to conclude that we would also lose Tokyo itself.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-consider...

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

#296

Post by oska »

runeks wrote: post #129
11235813213455 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nuclear power is significantly more (space-, energy-, ..) efficient and clean than solar farms https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23...

Does this figure factor in the $100 billion cost of the Fukushima disaster?

More like $600 billion. [1]

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-c...

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

#297

Post by lyxsus1 »

lamarpye wrote: post #266
lyxsus1 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I like how we instinctively characterize prisoners as slaves. Seems like it trivializes actual slavery, but I have been out of school for awhile, so the conventional wisdom is probably different now.

If you don't see labour camps as a form of modern slavery, then I'm genuinely asking you to provide the definition you've learned back at school.

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

#298

Post by Kluny »

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…

Why do you have a flat roof on a house that's surrounded by trees?

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

#299

Post by paulmd »

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.

Shading your house will also cause the growth of moss and dump leaf litter everywhere, which will take off a significant chunk of your roof's lifespan (easily 5 years or more). So yeah you save $10/mo on your a/c bill and you spend that $20k to roof your house every 15 years instead of every 20 years. Let alone if you get a big storm and have some branches or a trunk come down and damage your house.

Regardless of the environmental angle, having trees near your house is not worth it financially.

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

#300

Post by paulmd »

cure wrote: post #117
11235813213455 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nuclear power is significantly more (space-, energy-, ..) efficient and clean than solar farms https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23...

Except for those two huge externalities that are never priced in and always overlooked by people who say nuclear is 'clean': the waste that will remain toxic for a very long time, and the risk of accidents (slim, but the consequences are really, really, really bad).

If you reprocess waste for potentially usable fuel, the amount of stuff that needs to be discarded is quite small. Like, we could probably put everything we've ever accumulated in the US in fly ash pond of an average coal plant, easily. Obviously that is a bad idea but just to give you an idea of the size of what's needed.

Also yes, I'm sure waste disposal is factored into nuclear plants. It's usually coal plants that get the free pass to spew radiation into the air, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths annually.

(note that there is a fair amount of low-level waste generated that tends to inflate the waste output figures... you need to do something with the wrenches and shoe covers and stuff that get some neutron activation, and there's a large volume of that stuff but it's nowhere near as dangerous as spent fuel.)

Post reply on HN