18 votes

Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis

16 comments

  1. moriarty Link
    I am reminded of this discussion on reddit, trying to assess the number of trees a person needs to plant to offset their carbon use. It's about 6 trees a year per person.

    I am reminded of this discussion on reddit, trying to assess the number of trees a person needs to plant to offset their carbon use.
    It's about 6 trees a year per person.

    5 votes
  2. [10]
    StellarTabi Link
    I read somewhere else that, while this is good and important, it's also not even close to enough.

    I read somewhere else that, while this is good and important, it's also not even close to enough.

    2 votes
    1. [4]
      Neverland Link Parent
      I really sympathize with that train of thought, however I keep trying to remind myself that perfect is the enemy of good.

      I really sympathize with that train of thought, however I keep trying to remind myself that perfect is the enemy of good.

      15 votes
      1. [3]
        StellarTabi Link Parent
        I said enough, not perfect.

        I said enough, not perfect.

        4 votes
        1. alyaza Link Parent
          well, realistically nobody who knows what they're talking about with respect to climate change would only suggest planting a ton of trees as the best answer to climate change, especially since...

          well, realistically nobody who knows what they're talking about with respect to climate change would only suggest planting a ton of trees as the best answer to climate change, especially since deforestation is continuing en masse around the globe. it's something that you'd still have to do in tandem with other efforts to reduce emissions.

          5 votes
    2. [4]
      Amarok Link Parent
      I heard it would eat about 25% of the world's emissions, which is I think the single most effective result from one idea. It's fair to say that this is the best way we know of right now. Trouble...

      I heard it would eat about 25% of the world's emissions, which is I think the single most effective result from one idea. It's fair to say that this is the best way we know of right now. Trouble is, eventually this does level off, and all it takes is a few wildfires to get it all back in the air. We'll need to get very good at harvesting these trees and burying the ones we don't use to send that carbon back into the crust.

      There is no one solution to a problem this big. I'd go so far as to say that this proposal is a hardline requirement for the package of solutions we need, though. There are many other advantages to restoring the world's ecosystems this way beyond the carbon sequestration.

      5 votes
      1. [3]
        Hypersapien Link Parent
        I thought it was 2/3

        I thought it was 2/3

        1 vote
        1. [2]
          Amarok Link Parent
          I'd vote for it at 10%. :P I think the problem is that everyone talking about this has different variables for where and how many of what kind to plant, so the percentages vary across all of the...

          I'd vote for it at 10%. :P I think the problem is that everyone talking about this has different variables for where and how many of what kind to plant, so the percentages vary across all of the sources.

          2 votes
          1. Hypersapien Link Parent
            The solution to Climate Change isn't going to be just one thing. It's going to be many things, and this needs to be one of them.

            The solution to Climate Change isn't going to be just one thing. It's going to be many things, and this needs to be one of them.

            2 votes
    3. Hypersapien Link Parent
      So we do this in addition to other things.

      So we do this in addition to other things.

      1 vote
  3. [5]
    Hypersapien Link
    This gets us 2/3 of the way there. What if we combine this with Bill Gates' carbon capture plants?

    This gets us 2/3 of the way there. What if we combine this with Bill Gates' carbon capture plants?

    2 votes
    1. [4]
      Neverland (edited ) Link Parent
      The carbon capture scheme that Gates was talking about requires a lot of generated energy. So unless they use some carbon-neutral power source it might not be a net plus. But it is very...

      The carbon capture scheme that Gates was talking about requires a lot of generated energy. So unless they use some carbon-neutral power source it might not be a net plus. But it is very intriguing!

      Two other schemes which I am very excited about are:

      1. Prometheus, an economically viable, and carbon-neutral fuel supply company which creates ethanol-ish fuel from atmosphere+energy+infrastructure and is funded by Y Combininator. IMO this is great, but is an intermediary measure to make internal combustion engines less awful.

      2. Hydrogen powered ships, instead of the the horrible bunker fuel that they currently use. Ocean-going vessels contribute up to 17% of our co2 emissions. IMO, Amazon.com should be investing in this big time.

      5 votes
      1. [3]
        Hypersapien Link Parent
        The fuel that Prometheus makes, wouldn't we just be returning the carbon to the atmosphere when we use it?

        The fuel that Prometheus makes, wouldn't we just be returning the carbon to the atmosphere when we use it?

        1 vote
        1. [2]
          Neverland (edited ) Link Parent
          yes, it is just a carbon-neutral scheme. However, that means that we could keep all of the internal combustion engines carbon-neutral, until they have been replaced by electric motors and...

          yes, it is just a carbon-neutral scheme. However, that means that we could keep all of the internal combustion engines carbon-neutral, until they have been replaced by electric motors and batteries. Also, existing oil exploration creates a lot of carbon.

          2 votes
          1. Hypersapien Link Parent
            Well, that's something at least.

            Well, that's something at least.

            1 vote