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

41–50 of 218 posts

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

#41

Post by dleslie »

jerkstate wrote: post #22
dleslie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's far less than what a professional tree planter will manage in a single day in Canada. It's definitely possible for any healthy adult.

Keep in mind that the 600-1000 number is for "tree age 0" which is a sapling about 6 feet (two meters) tall - the germination/survival rate for planting smaller saplings or seeds is much lower.

Yep, when my wife tree planted she'd carry bags of those on her hips. One member of her team planted a tree every seven seconds, while they were working in BC.

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

#42

Post by samdoidge »

uberman wrote: post #27
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…

To echo this: According to: The University of Michigan and NC state: The average American's footprint is 21 metric tons a year while the average tree absorbs 21 kg a year. That makes it a ball park of 1000 trees.

Yes, but American's produce more than the average person on the planet.

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

#43

Post by Jolter »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #21
dx87 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an article posted recently that said the best way to increase the co2 uptake is by cutting down the fully grown trees and planting new trees. Full grown trees don't absord as much co2 as a tree that is still growing, and the needles that some trees drop make the ground acidic, preventing new trees from growing. The problem is that you have to find something to do with all the wood so the captured co2 doesn'…

I had a stupid thought yesterday that I need to run numbers on, but I wonder if following would be possible: Allocate some large area of ground for planting fast-growing trees. Dig a large and deep hole in the middle; something like 20 meters in diameter x 500 meters in depth. Let the trees grow; when they're mature, cut them down, throw into the hole, and throw a bunch of dirt (from the mound you made by digging the…

No, because the buried wood would decompose. Decomposing wood releases its stored carbon as carbon dioxide, which will slowly evaporate through the covering dirt.

One scheme that actually would work is to convert the wood to coal, then burying it. That could be done without adding any energy by using old-fashioned methods for charcoal burning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal_burner

Because charcoal is chemically inert, the buried charcoal should stay put for up to a few hundred years,rather than a couple of decades for the decomposing wood.

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

#44

Post by VBprogrammer »

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…

It would be interesting to see how coppicing / pollaring impact the amount of carbon potentially sequestered.

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

#45

Post by guelo »

dsr_ wrote: post #33
guelo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't have acres of land to plant trees in.

Which is why you outsource the tree planting to a place that has room for trees -- and it's more efficient because they can grow trees better than you can, anyway. nationalforests.org, the Arbor Day Foundation... there are probably lots of good options.

nationalforests.org does reforesting of recently burned forests which are probably burning more frequently due to climate change. I don't think replacing forests that were alive when you were born should count as offsetting your personal CO2 emissions, if the idea is to have an actual effect it has to be new trees in new forests.

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

#46

Post by lucb1e »

I recently looked into this as well. What I'm worried about (as opposed to a more expensive method like Climeworks offers) is what prevents people from ripping out those trees next year? The planting companies never seem to be the owner of the ground. They don't even guarantee a single year.

Does anyone know how they handle this risk?

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

#47

Post by tempguy9999 »

aresant wrote: post #36
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…

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…

This got voted down in a hurry. Every point seems valid and robust, so why?

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

#48

Post by mattferderer »

hangonhn wrote: post #6

Slightly tangentially related, for those of us who are into gardening and coding, there is a plant monitor made by Xiaomi called Xiaomi Flower Care that will monitor moisture, light, temperature, and soil fertility. It works over Bluetooth and can be purchased on Amazon for as low as $8 per probe but the vendors will often charge around $25. You see a lot of rebranded ones but they're all the same from Xiaomi. It wor…

Looks like this is the same device for $9 on Amazon in case anyone is now sold on wanting one.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07L491F8K/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_d...

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

#49

Post by FerretFred »

guelo wrote: post #25
maxencecornet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an average person from a high carbon output country needs about 600-1000 trees to offset their carbon output. This seems really doable for the average person!

Most people don't have acres of land to plant trees in.

Nope! I'm growing Goat Willow, Cherry and a rescue-acorn that's now a 4 inch oak sapling, all in a small space.

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

#50

Post by test001only »

crispsquirrel wrote: post #8

I really want to start planting trees because this planet needs more trees, it's not a joke or some hippy movement, the consequences are real. I just feel like doing so in the UK is a bureaucratic nightmare. Plus buying trees to plant isn't cheap. I might just start saving up for land and planting trees there if I can.

Can you please shed more light on why planting trees in UK is a bureaucratic nightmare?
Post reply on HN