Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas • Hacker News Board

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#71

Post by cgh » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 11:52 PM UTC

lrem wrote: post #41

tobltobs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you cut of the second part of this sentence? “Restoring trees at [low] density is not mutually exclusive with grazing. In fact many studies suggest sheep and cattle do better if there are a few trees in the field.”

Because it is not that relevant, for two reasons: 1. Most land used to produce meat and milk is actually not by grazing. 2. I was tunnel-visioned on the part I added. The article calls for reforesting 1.7G hectares, at average 50% density, for a total of 850M. Amazon is being deforested at about 500k-1M hectares per year[1] and the political climate suggests making it worse rather than better. According to a quick go…

>> Most land used to produce meat and milk is actually not by grazing.

That's false. All cattle is grazed before spending the final few weeks of life in feedlots (unless it's grass-finished beef, in which case the feedlot is skipped).

Anti-cattle people really need to visit a ranch sometime to see what actually happens there because I read a lot of misinformation on HN around this topic.

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#72

Post by cgh » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 12:04 AM UTC

senorjazz wrote: post #48

jillesvangurp wrote: post #46

It can actually be better than this still. Cattle can be part of a solution to helping restore arid land where the soil has been destroyed by intensive farming and erosion. Healthy soil stores enormous amounts of biomass (aka carbon). Intensive farming has destroyed enormous amounts of land world-wide and turned it into desert, releasing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a reversible process and catlle is part…

Is this actually validated? Living in an area heavily deforested for cattle grazing, the cattle grazed land does not look like a healthy land. The cattle keep all plant life cut right back. Hot sun can easily access the soil drying it out, then when heavy rains come, the top soil all runs off the land. Land that is left without cattle fares better, land that is actively reforested and trees helped to get established…

>> Land that is left without cattle fares better

This is not true of North America's grasslands. Pre-contact, tens of millions of bison fed on the grasslands much like cattle do now, with certain differences. Most cattle ranching operations are small so there are a lot of fences, which leads to intense grazing in some areas and relatively little in others.

Grasslands have a symbiotic relationship with grazers. Without regular grazing and lightning-caused fires (indigenous populations also regularly burned large areas to help grazing animals), grasslands tend to progress to either bushy forests or dustbowls.

In fact, the greatest danger to the grasslands of North America is farming.

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#73

Post by cgh » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 12:06 AM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #46

It can actually be better than this still. Cattle can be part of a solution to helping restore arid land where the soil has been destroyed by intensive farming and erosion. Healthy soil stores enormous amounts of biomass (aka carbon). Intensive farming has destroyed enormous amounts of land world-wide and turned it into desert, releasing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a reversible process and catlle is part…

You are correct. Here's another link in support of what I think is highly counter-intuitive to people here:

http://www.dasnr.okstate.edu/Members/donald-stotts-40okstate...

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#74

Post by barry-cotter » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 12:07 AM UTC

senorjazz wrote: post #48

jillesvangurp wrote: post #46

It can actually be better than this still. Cattle can be part of a solution to helping restore arid land where the soil has been destroyed by intensive farming and erosion. Healthy soil stores enormous amounts of biomass (aka carbon). Intensive farming has destroyed enormous amounts of land world-wide and turned it into desert, releasing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a reversible process and catlle is part…

Is this actually validated? Living in an area heavily deforested for cattle grazing, the cattle grazed land does not look like a healthy land. The cattle keep all plant life cut right back. Hot sun can easily access the soil drying it out, then when heavy rains come, the top soil all runs off the land. Land that is left without cattle fares better, land that is actively reforested and trees helped to get established…

The effects of having cattle/area constant over time are very different from having it change a lot cyclically. Flora, fauna and soil health will all be a lot better if you rotate a large herd over a large area, as a herd, than if they just roam freely the whole time. With a lot of cattle in a small area for a short time the ground will get chewed up and manure will be quite thoroughly mixed in. Leaving long periods in between this treatment means there’s a strong root system though so if the land isn’t grazed again for a long time it recovers well. The closer you approximate hordes of buffalo, aurochs or wildebeest thundering over the plains the closer you’re going to get to savannah/prairie/tundra.

http://www.econtalk.org/moises-velasquez-manoff-on-cows-carb...

> Journalist and author Moises Velasquez-Manoff talks about the role of dirt in fighting climate change with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Velasquez-Manoff explains how changes in farming can allow dirt and plants to absorb carbon and potentially reduce climate change.

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#75

Post by tortarga » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 12:11 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #18

It's about time this was noticed. Consider that coal comes from dead trees - growing trees will be a big part of the solution.

Trees that had their leaves stripped by acid rain, flowed into stagnant seas and the nutrients caused ocean-wide algal blooms.

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#76

Post by dylan604 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 12:32 AM UTC

JudgeWapner wrote: post #69

Tharkun wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be no need to genetically engineer trees for construction at this point, at least not in north america. Some kind of beetle (or was it a fungus?) has killed off a mind boggling number of trees which can be used as engineered wood in construction. As CLT and maybe Brettstapel.

> Some kind of beetle (or was it a fungus?) has killed off a mind boggling number of trees which may be a side-effect of fighting forest fires and the campaign against logging. higher tree density == easier for fungus to spread. this is why I don't automatically believe anything from the "enlightened" progressive camp. back in the 80's, it was "Stop the Big Bad Loggers! Save the Forest!". Now, had they responsibly th…

I get the premise of thinning, but nature seemed to do just fine for quite some time before humans brought their theories on how to maintain forests. Man comes up with a theory on how to use the land, but then has to come up with new theories to undo the effect the preceding theory caused. Looking at how nature has coped with out humans in Chernobyl is a good example of nature not needing man's help.

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#77

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:00 AM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #46

It can actually be better than this still. Cattle can be part of a solution to helping restore arid land where the soil has been destroyed by intensive farming and erosion. Healthy soil stores enormous amounts of biomass (aka carbon). Intensive farming has destroyed enormous amounts of land world-wide and turned it into desert, releasing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a reversible process and catlle is part…

[deleted]

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#78

Post by acqq » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:15 AM UTC

Flip-per wrote: post #58

acqq wrote: post #15

From the article: “Crowther emphasised that it remains vital to reverse the current trends of rising greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and forest destruction, and bring them down to zero. He said this is needed to stop the climate crisis becoming even worse and because the forest restoration envisaged would take 50-100 years to have its full effect of removing 200bn tonnes of carbon” 200bn tonnes? App…

My interpretation: Only 42 % of the emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere[1], the rest is soaked up by land and ocean. The article only relates to the CO2 in the atmosphere. [1] https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

That factor changes "5 years" to 12. Which is still less than that because our emissions still increase.

I don't suggest that trees aren't important, just that they are definitely still just a tiny part against what we put in the atmosphere at the moment if we contiue to do so (and we do too little to change that).

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#79

Post by ahje » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:34 AM UTC

senorjazz wrote: post #48

jillesvangurp wrote: post #46

It can actually be better than this still. Cattle can be part of a solution to helping restore arid land where the soil has been destroyed by intensive farming and erosion. Healthy soil stores enormous amounts of biomass (aka carbon). Intensive farming has destroyed enormous amounts of land world-wide and turned it into desert, releasing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a reversible process and catlle is part…

Is this actually validated? Living in an area heavily deforested for cattle grazing, the cattle grazed land does not look like a healthy land. The cattle keep all plant life cut right back. Hot sun can easily access the soil drying it out, then when heavy rains come, the top soil all runs off the land. Land that is left without cattle fares better, land that is actively reforested and trees helped to get established…

Overgrazing will ruin the land, and will counteract/nullify the benefits compared to well-managed grazing, and it's a no-brainer that further deforestation is a bad thing regardless of what we are using the land for afterwards.

Re: Many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas

#80

Post by solstice » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

raphaelj wrote: post #52

michaelaiello wrote: post #4

You can plant trees at $USD0.10 per tree at trees.org

That's really interesting. According to this [1], a 10 years old `Calliandra calothyrsus` such as the ones they (trees.org) plant captures about 170 kg / 380 lbs of CO2. According to the World Bank [2], the average European citizen produces 6 tons of CO2 while the average American produces about 16 tons. That would mean that they can offset the yearly CO2 emissions of an European or American person by planting 35 ($3…

That's true but only half the picture: every time one of these trees dies it is cut down it needs to be buried or otherwise prevented from releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The tree you mentioned is described on Wikipedia as follows: "...This tree grows to about 6 m and has pinnate compound leaves and flowers with a boss of prominent reddish-purple stamens. It is not very drought-tolerant and the above-ground parts are short-lived but the roots regularly resprout..." So that's a significant amount of stuff to bury/dispose of. (The project at trees.org seems very interesting regardless, though.)