Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 139 posts

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#51

Post by ethagknight »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #25

The problem is with the incentives. We reward organizations for planting trees when we should be rewarding them for growing trees. Anecdotally, paper mills don't seem to have a problem successfully growing monocrop forests on their own properties because they actually have a reason to care about the success of replanting their own land.

This is great insight that I haven't considered. IN parts of the US you can plainly see miles of monoculture forests in all directions thriving (in an industrial sense) because they are actively managed. Look around Panama City, FL, (link below) for a good example.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2640043,-85.4463662,3277m/da...

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#52

Post by theptip »

pstuart wrote: post #49
theptip wrote: post #46

> Not surprisingly, those locals often reacted badly. For example, in northern Malawi, they broke fences and burned a growing forest to get back the common grazing land on which the trees had been planted. In two Nigerian projects, villagers cut all the planted non-fruit trees for firewood, while protecting those that bore fruit. Recommended reading: "Seeing Like A State" by James Scott. The first section on Scientif…

You're spot on with your assessment, the only thing I'd change is that the centralized management does more than funding -- it provides a library of possible projects with expert assistance as needed. Locals still get control and ownership of their efforts but they have help when they want it.

Indeed. Given the starting point, and the major shift in world-view required to do this kind of thing, I think of that library as a "phase 2" kind of thing. First get a few successful projects under our belt, then think about how we can add more leverage.

But I strongly agree that the end point to envision is the center acting as a library/facilitator to share knowledge between different groups, rather than The Source of Truth in itself.

Local farmers that succeed in these sort of programs would likely be happy to go share ideas and experiences with other farmers, and the government can certainly provide funding and logistical support to facilitate these small-scale collaborations.

And it's certainly the case that there are some scientific advances that farmers aren't aware of, that "the center" can help to introduce; things like sensors, democratized GM technology, and so on, could all be developed centrally and made available to the periphery. Farmers tend to be quick to adopt new tools and practices that actually help them.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#53

Post by debacle »

smesla wrote: post #28
debacle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A variety. I'm working to restore a large tract of former farmland, and so we're trying to plant whatever sticks to increase biodiversity.

If you haven't yet, you may want to hire a professional forester. At 70% loss they'd likely pay for themselves many times over and save a lot of headache.

These are seedling trees, less than a foot high. They're expected to fail at a pretty high rate. In the future I'll be updating to 2nd year trees which seem to have a better cost/survival rate.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#54

Post by dylan604 »

Lendal wrote: post #30
MichaelCollins wrote: post #25

The problem is with the incentives. We reward organizations for planting trees when we should be rewarding them for growing trees. Anecdotally, paper mills don't seem to have a problem successfully growing monocrop forests on their own properties because they actually have a reason to care about the success of replanting their own land.

I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist. Unfortunately the arborists in my town are incentivized to get me to pay their company to cut my trees down and replace them with new ones every 10-15 years or so. We really just need more foresters, with a broader mission that extends beyond simply government-owned park land, who can hel…

>I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist.

I don't mean to be rude, but how brown is your green thumb? I get killing house plants, but killing a tree growing outdoors seems like something you'd actively have to do. The most common "mistake" I've seen are lack of care with lawn equipment like weed whackers. Are they just not being planted correctly so they don't have a chance?

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#55

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

How many of these tree planting projects are funded by carbon credits/offsets?

Tree planting seems the be the simplest/cheapest project to do that ostensibly removes CO2.

Basically, the carbon offsets serve as a conscience salve for rich people to continue their lifestyle, and then these tree projects exist as a way to say that you are at least trying to do something. Nobody really cares if they are effective or not.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#56

Post by antisthenes »

ianbicking wrote: post #11

The Miyawaki method [1], which I'm sure has been on HN before, is a very different approach to these projects. When I first read about it, it seemed like a kind of too-good-to-be-true miracle approach, but reading further it's really just a lot of hard work. Site preparation is a huge part of it. This photo gallery [2] gives some sense. It starts with soil testing and soil amendment, I doubt they ever consider the so…

The Miyawaki model is incredibly labor intensive and requires far more sophistication in monitoring and planting methods than developing countries are usually willing to commit to mass planting projects.

90%+ of these mass planting "1 million trees in 30 seconds" projects is usually little more than putting sticks in the ground, hoping some of them make it, with little regard for survivability, usefulness, tree species nativity, etc.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#58

Post by mypalmike »

clairity wrote: post #14
debacle wrote: post #5

Trees tend to fail spectacularly, even for seasoned growers. The site that I bulk purchase seedlings from estimates a failure rate as high as 70% for evergreen plugs if you do everything right . As you move up from seedlings to 3 year old plants, the failure rate drops to 10%, but my real failure rate is probably closer to 30%. The number one reason is too much/too little moisture, with some pests/disease thrown in.…

yes, LA has a program to give away trees for planting in yards and parkways, and my read of the program is that, while it's goal is laudable, the implementation is lacking. earlier this year, a partner non-profit planted 2 trees for us and i planted an additional 2 trees that another org gave us, and i learned that it's not a set-it-and-forget-it type of endeavor. walking around my neighborhood, many of these trees,…

In Seattle, we have a similar program. The tree comes with a donut-shaped water bag for twice weekly watering during the dry summer, and instructions for tree care for those first 5 years. The main takeaways I got were: don't bury the trunk (the top of the root system should just barely be above the dirt line) and amend the tree maybe once a year with coarse wood or bark mulch, leaving a couple inches of space around the trunk. Three years in, my tree seems to be flourishing.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#59

Post by hutzlibu »

greenie_beans wrote: post #15

and what about grasslands? these projects will sometimes plant forests that were historically savanna and grasslands

History is gone. Also it is likely, that there were times when those Savanne areas were covered with trees.

There is no shortage of grasslands that are close of becoming desserts with one serious draught, but there is shortage of forests, that hold the moisture and prevent further desertification.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#60

Post by chaostheory »

ethagknight wrote: post #51
MichaelCollins wrote: post #25

The problem is with the incentives. We reward organizations for planting trees when we should be rewarding them for growing trees. Anecdotally, paper mills don't seem to have a problem successfully growing monocrop forests on their own properties because they actually have a reason to care about the success of replanting their own land.

This is great insight that I haven't considered. IN parts of the US you can plainly see miles of monoculture forests in all directions thriving (in an industrial sense) because they are actively managed. Look around Panama City, FL, (link below) for a good example. https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2640043,-85.4463662,3277m/da...

Isn’t most of the Western portion of the US comprised of monoculture forests due to the historical lack of rain compared to the Eastern half?
Post reply on HN