that's only 160 trees per person...
Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
81–90 of 332 posts
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll have to account for driving water to the desert. Desert soil is fine (for desert-aware trees), but trees like water, and large trees like lots of water. In my country, Australia-native Eucalyptus is doing well. http://www.kalanit.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IMG_000...
The Romans built aqueducts that spanned hundreds of miles and they did it thousands of years ago. Why do you assume that today water has to be 'driven' with trucks or something? I'm sure we could build aqueducts.
Whatever you do, if the target is reducing CO2 emission, you'll have to account for the CO2 investment. All I am saying is it may be more cost-effective to leave the desert alone and put our Trillion trees where conditions are already great for large trees (Alaska, NZ), instead of pipe-dreaming about Roman aqueducts delivering water to a green Sahara or Gobi.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#83Not to be too snarky, but my first reaction to the headline was, “ only 1.2 trillion? What are we waiting for!” More seriously, though: the article claims there’s “ample acreage” for such an endeavor but I didn’t see where exactly they’re referring to. Are we supposed to imagine these are sprinkled here and there around the earth, and that there’s plenty of space just waiting for a tree to be planted, or is this some…
The great plains have little vegetation on them, and take well to having trees planted on them. The trees in Kansas, for example, were planted by early settlers to break the wind, and have thrived.
(The historical reason trees were absent from the great plains was periodic fire.)
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#84> Trees are “our most powerful weapon in the fight against climate change” No, our most powerful weapon against climate change is reducing human GHG emissions.
The should probably say 'most effective'. Yes not creating the problem in the first place would be the most powerful approach, but it's just not going to happen at least in the short to medium term. It would hit our standards of living (everybody's, including the poorest people on the planet) too much to be politically viable. The things we can do to reduce carbon emissions immediately are somewhat limited, but planting trees right now is comparatively easy.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#85Just an aside, if you see campaigns such as "we have planted 2 trees for each widget you buy" you should understand that this is often in a forestry program where the new trees often get pruned or removed to make room. So a claim like "we planted 10k trees last year" doesnt mean much at all. the majority of trees planted in forestry do not survive. In terms of carbon a forestry program is neutral at best just replacing fallen trees and negative most of the time.
It's not the planting that counts, it's the leaving the trees alone.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#86An interesting idea I had. Obviously it’s destructive but maybe still a net win? Go through every forest on earth and cut down every third tree and sequester it so it won’t decompose and release the carbon. Then the forest rengerates itself and pulls all that carbon out of the atmosphere. Or an idea for a billionaire. Buy out the entire worlds annual output of lumber and sequester it.
The tree grows anyway, plausibly at a faster rate than a small one (slower proportionally,but more in absolute volume) while keeping the existing volume sequestered, so cutting it down does not seem effective.
You could dump vegetables or corn in a hole though, but I've read that's not a cost effective solution either.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#87Not to be too snarky, but my first reaction to the headline was, “ only 1.2 trillion? What are we waiting for!” More seriously, though: the article claims there’s “ample acreage” for such an endeavor but I didn’t see where exactly they’re referring to. Are we supposed to imagine these are sprinkled here and there around the earth, and that there’s plenty of space just waiting for a tree to be planted, or is this some…
That's only 160 trees for every man, woman, and child on Earth... It doesn't seem like a particularly practical solution.
But it might be part of a solution.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#88Earlier 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 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.
Or use the wood in construction.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all of it, that's the point. Some pure carbon (charcoal) is left that makes good soil amendment. That carbon doesn't make it back to the atmosphere unless somehow burned.
But the comment said we could get energy out. Wouldn't we burn it to get energy?
The creation of charcoal itself generates heat which can be used.
Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Unfortunately it relies on volunteer villagers with unused land so there's a limit to how much capital could be deployed that way.