Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
1–10 of 139 posts
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#2"There is no anti-tree lobby"
There absolutely is. In my country, logging companies release statements complaining bitterly about effects to industry when new areas of land are protected from logging by the government. They equally are quite happy to quietly log ancient trees when allowed. Just because people don't march around with their agenda printed on a badge doesn't mean they don't exist.
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#3a quick read of this -- it appears to be a list of badly executed projects by struggling governments, more than anything ecosystem-oriented; coinciding with "constant topic of conversation in political circles" .. Second in failure rate only to "protecting healthy forests that exist now" ?
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#4" There is no anti-tree lobby " There absolutely is. In my country, logging companies release statements complaining bitterly about effects to industry when new areas of land are protected from logging by the government. They equally are quite happy to quietly log ancient trees when allowed. Just because people don't march around with their agenda printed on a badge doesn't mean they don't exist.
If you add the slight qualifier "there is no anti-tree-planting lobby" then it works... those logging companies will also enthusiastically support planting trees
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#5Trees 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.
Furthermore, trees need organic material. A lot of it. A tree planted in "dirt" will be about the same size 3 years later. A (young) tree planted in rich compost can double in size in a year. You can't stick a tree in the ground anywhere and expect it to grow without a good amount of help.
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#6Planting the wrong trees can be an ecological disaster and a lot of trees planted are the wrong tree for the environment
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#7" There is no anti-tree lobby " There absolutely is. In my country, logging companies release statements complaining bitterly about effects to industry when new areas of land are protected from logging by the government. They equally are quite happy to quietly log ancient trees when allowed. Just because people don't march around with their agenda printed on a badge doesn't mean they don't exist.
If you add the slight qualifier "there is no anti-tree-planting lobby" then it works... those logging companies will also enthusiastically support planting trees
The same way that wolves are pro-birthers when it comes to sheep.
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#8" There is no anti-tree lobby " There absolutely is. In my country, logging companies release statements complaining bitterly about effects to industry when new areas of land are protected from logging by the government. They equally are quite happy to quietly log ancient trees when allowed. Just because people don't march around with their agenda printed on a badge doesn't mean they don't exist.
If you add the slight qualifier "there is no anti-tree-planting lobby" then it works... those logging companies will also enthusiastically support planting trees
There's no lobby, but you count me as part of an anti-tree-planting group. There's a specific reason why, and it's because of how it's done. The reason that they plant trees, is to grow specific kinds of trees that are good for logging companies. So they spray areas that are logged with glycosphate to prevent other plants from reclaiming the logged areas, and then plant round-up ready GMO trees in the area. It leads to these massive mono-culture forests that are prime for huge forest fires. The trees they want are fire-promoting trees (like pines), and the trees they don't (like aspen) are fire break species. They then blame the bigger forest fires entirely on climate change.
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you add the slight qualifier "there is no anti-tree-planting lobby" then it works... those logging companies will also enthusiastically support planting trees
The same way that wolves are pro-birthers when it comes to sheep.
Yes but planting trees and turning it to lumber is an excellent way to sequester carbon.
Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing
#10Monocultures of any kind are always fragile, you need diversity to have a resilient ecosystem. These projects should benefit from an understanding of permaculture, which is a discipline that aims to create the right conditions for healthy systems. Everything from succession (pioneer leguminous species that can fix nitrogen and improve soil, slowly replaced by other species), trying to slow down and catch water where it falls to prevent soil erosion and runoff and much more. I've heard (unsubstantiated) claims that initiatives in China have already started to take these into account and have succeeded where other monoculture forests failed.
A side effect is that you can end up with productive species. Imagine forests where many trees bear fruits, others have acorns that pigs can feed on, fruit vines and understory herbs that animals can graze on, large lakes with edible fish. This is the future I'd be excited for and it's all currently possible with the right policies.