12 votes

This tree has stood here for 500 years. Will it be sold for $17,500?

5 comments

  1. [5]
    dubteedub
    Link
    I think this is a really interesting article and I love how as you scroll through the text you travel down the length of the tree. I think that these kinds of visual storytelling projects are...

    I think this is a really interesting article and I love how as you scroll through the text you travel down the length of the tree. I think that these kinds of visual storytelling projects are really crucial to elevate the cause of climate change.

    I also was fully unaware of the magnitude of carbon dioxide capture potential for trees. Comparing the price of lumber vs. the carbon locking of the tree was really unique way of looking at this issue.

    This article raises some intriguing questions like: If we apply a carbon tax in the future, should trees / lumber also have added carbon costs attached to them to mitigate the destruction of forests and encourage alternative solutions to lumber?

    6 votes
    1. [4]
      teaearlgraycold
      Link Parent
      Strictly by carbon concerns, we should encourage people to cut down and then plant replacement trees. Cutting down old forests is bad for the ecosystems they create - but growing new trees will...

      should trees / lumber also have added carbon costs attached to them to mitigate the destruction of forests and encourage alternative solutions to lumber?

      Strictly by carbon concerns, we should encourage people to cut down and then plant replacement trees. Cutting down old forests is bad for the ecosystems they create - but growing new trees will sequester more carbon than leaving forests alone.

      Although the best option would be to plant new forests.

      1 vote
      1. vord
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Yes and no. Old-growth forests also support more wildlife which also sequester carbon. Think rainforest instead of christmas tree farm. We should most definitely create new growth, but not at the...

        Yes and no. Old-growth forests also support more wildlife which also sequester carbon. Think rainforest instead of christmas tree farm.

        We should most definitely create new growth, but not at the expense of old growth. Old growth doesn't need replaced, just periodically pruned.

        Related: We need more controlled burns to mitigate this in the short term.

        Also, I think we're only going tto be ble to replant to a point. We need to reduce consumption across the board. Not just with emmission-reducing things, but with all production collectively.

        Increasing quality of goods to support repairability will do more for our planet than eliminating all combustion engines.

        Eliminating pollution (single use plastics especially) means healthier ecosystems. Big animals sequester carbon, eat small animals who do as well, who eat the plants who consume carbon.

        Everyone focuses on emissions and not the dying ecosystems, which are just as big, if not bigger factor.

        4 votes
      2. [2]
        dubteedub
        Link Parent
        Do you have a source for that? From what I have read, younger trees do not sequester as much carbon as old growth. Leaving trees alone might be better than planting new ones

        but growing new trees will sequester more carbon than leaving forests alone.

        Do you have a source for that? From what I have read, younger trees do not sequester as much carbon as old growth.

        While Moomaw lauds intensifying efforts to plant billions of young trees, he says that preserving existing mature forests will have an even more profound effect on slowing global warming in the coming decades, since immature trees sequester far less CO2 than older ones. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Moomaw explains the benefits of proforestation, discusses the policy changes that would lead to the preservation of existing forests, and sharply criticizes the recent trend of converting forests in the Southeastern U.S. to wood pellets that can be burned to produce electricity in Europe and elsewhere.

        Q. How do you define proforestation?

        A. So I began looking at some of the data and some of the papers that had come out recently, and I found that if we managed our forests and grasslands in a different way they could be sequestering twice as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they currently do. One paper found in multi-aged forests around the world of all types, that half of the carbon is stored in the largest one-percent diameter trees. So I began thinking about this, and I realized that the most effective thing that we can do is to allow trees that are already planted, that are already growing, to continue growing to reach their ecological potential, to store carbon, and develop a forest that has its full complement of environmental services.

        3 votes
        1. vord
          Link Parent
          I think the results are mixed, esp since new growth will have denser tree plantings. The real answer is only make new forests, not try to hyperoptimize existing ones.

          I think the results are mixed, esp since new growth will have denser tree plantings.

          The real answer is only make new forests, not try to hyperoptimize existing ones.

          1 vote