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

51–60 of 332 posts

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

#51

Post by strainer »

Studies on this are very valuable. The IPCC's AR5 advises this kind of action to be funded and analyzes different policy approaches to enable action.

There is no justification at skepticism and entertaining back-of-the-envelope gotchas about the climactic and environmental value of tree planting and enhanced forestry at this late stage. It needs to be supported !

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

" Reducing emissions from deforestation; reducing emissions from forest degradation; conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD) consists of forest-related activities implemented voluntarily by developing countries that may, in isolation or jointly lead to significant climate change mitigation. REDD was introduced in the agenda of the UNFCCC in 2005, and has since evolved to an improved understanding of the potential positive and negative impacts, methodological issues, safeguards, and financial aspects associated with REDD implementation. " (page 865)

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

#52

Post by kabdib »

chongli wrote: post #41
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the emissions when those trees burn We'd probably have to sequester them somewhere anaerobic. Bottom of a deep-sea trench or underground. Which also reduces the net carbon footprint of the activity.

Why not do something more useful and sequester the trees in buildings? Timber-framed houses for everyone!

I wonder if the eventual fate of most lumber is to be burned, on the scale of tens of decades (as buildings deteriorate, are remodeled and older bits thrown out). In which case you're just postponing the need to sequester anyway.

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

#54

Post by aidenn0 »

tim333 wrote: post #22
781 wrote: post #6

Noob question here: what is stopping nature doing this, seeds and all that?

I guess it depends on the location. Some have cattle and deforestation. Natural reseeding can be slow. Though in England if you leave a bit of land alone it'll pretty much be woodland in 30 years or so. If anyone fancies donating to plant a few 100 or 1000 trees https://donate.trees.org/campaign/trees-for-the-futures-eart... does good stuff for about 15c/tree. It doesn't take very much to cancel out your personal CO2…

At that rate, Bezos could offset 5 years of the entire world's CO2 emissions?

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

#56

Post by strainer »

d33 wrote: post #4

This makes me wonder - could trees be modified genetically to handle more CO2 in order to make this number lower? Could we, instead of trees, have huge walls made of plants that would consume our CO2?

You mean running a permanent experiment on the genetic diversity and interplay of forest species across the globe?

Luckily such recklessness is unnecessary.

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

#57

Post by jweir »

But, wait... some places are clearing forest for solar farms.

Georgetown https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/01/georgetow...

Rhode Island https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190414/proposed-ri-...

Prineville Oregon(I dont' know how many trees will be cleared for this, maybe it will be on existing farmland) https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2018/07/massive_so...

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

#58

Post by avip »

jayd16 wrote: post #36
m0zg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor the emissions when those trees burn because they were planted in a place where waterbed can't support their density. This is happening in CA nearly every year.

The burning an decay of a planted tree would at worst be carbon neutral.

Which Carbon though. Trading CO2 for CH4, for example, would not serve us well.

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

#59

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

jayd16 wrote: post #36
m0zg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor the emissions when those trees burn because they were planted in a place where waterbed can't support their density. This is happening in CA nearly every year.

The burning an decay of a planted tree would at worst be carbon neutral.

Right, but if the point of planting the trees is carbon amelioration, than carbon neutral would somewhat defeat the point.

I've seen this argument before, and I think the real place it falls down is that there just isn't that much space. For mature growth forest, you have something like 40-ish big hardwood trees per acre [1]. Those are, to my understanding, the only ones that are really relevant because they make up most of the biomass. Other types of trees are just a rounding error. `1.2e12 / 40 acres -> square miles` (frink) is 4.7e7 square miles. That is more than the whole land area of Earth [2]. There is certainly not enough land that would support mature forests available to plant so many trees, unless I have made a serious calculation error.

[1]: http://www.sbcounty.gov/calmast/sbc/html/healthy_forest.asp

[2]: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml

Post reply on HN