Another article I came across today that I wasn't going to post, but for Brad's comment about reforestation and climate change (http://th3core.com/talk/water-coolerextra/how-the-new-deal-dealth-with-tb-during-the-depression/msg69414/#msg69414)
Short version: a trillion trees (AKA 500 times what the CCC planted) would offset 1/3 of carbon emissions and take 50-100 years to do it, possibly more since a lot of the reforestable lands are in the far north where things grow slowly, and, in any case, would absorb carbon more slowly than we are currently pumping it into the atmosphere.. So it's a great idea, but we still need to get our shit together and get control of emissions ASAP.
QuoteWe can also compare the "negative emissions" from tree planting to our other emissions. The 200 GtC would be less than one third of the 640 GtC total emissions, not two thirds. And the authors of the new study say that it would take fifty to one hundred years for the thousand billion trees to store 200 GtC – an average of 2 to 4 GtC per year, compared to our current emissions of 11 GtC per year.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/07/can-planting-trees-save-our-climate/
>great idea
While it will be 'too late' for near-term climate warming, I think the prospect of doing it on a mega-scale is do-able because of drones.
related story:
Back in the late 70s, we moved to a house in a new suburban development. A lot of the men who worked part-time at our wholesale company had their primary jobs at the local lumber company. I asked one to plant some trees along the back fence line. I was thinking he'd stop by a nursery and pick up 3 or 4 saplings. But he had other training and thought otherwise. He showed up with a commercial sack labeled 'Super Pines' or somesuch that they use to re-plant tree farms. There were a couple hundred feather-like seedlings in the sack. With only a spade he set 2 rows across the entire width of the yard in a short time. Even though it wasn't what I had envisioned, I decided to leave it as [1] any tree is a good tree (except Gums) and [2] most of them would die early-on without maintenance and the few that did survive would be enough to put a few trees in the yard.
But these were commercial 'Super Pines'......
EVERY ONE of them took root and started to shoot up. Before the end of that same summer, they were thigh-high. I had to cull 2/3rds of them in order to be able to mow. By the next summer, the remainders were chin-high. By their 5th year, those that I kept were 15ft/4.5m high.
<+>
OK, maybe it happened even faster than I remember. Take a look at the photo for 'AVG Age 2 - Coastal Plain'
https://www.arborgen.com/varietals-pine-seedlings/
that's crazy growth. I wonder how those trees do over the long term. Everything I've seen says that it's mature forests that sequester the most carbon, but I'm not entirely sure what that means (i.e. is it just a function of size or is there something about age that matters too).
We will still need carbon sequestration 100 years from now. Best to get planting now.
But it needs to be done right with a native mix of forest trees and understory trees, not mono-culture plantations.
Long term in N. America, some species of trees are going to need to move North for them to survive as southern regions become too hot or dry.
It's not just about carbon. Reforestation helps against many of the side effects of climate change: erosion control, flood control, wildlife habitat, air quality, quality of life etc.
In the USA, we can start with the low hanging fruit:
1. Reclaim strip mining lands.
2. Reforest marginal farmlands, that really never should have been cleared. (Steep slopes, flood plains etc.)
3. Reforest areas around cities as those cities contract in size. (ie. Detroit)
4. Urban and street trees (amazing amount of storm water run off control with these and urban shade means less A/C running.)
Reforestation isn't a silver bullet. It alone is not going to stop climate change, but it can help alongside the other things we have to do.
Yes, yes! Even with climate change off the table, there are many, many benefits to reforestation and reforestation will help with climate.
The article I linked to is from Real Climate, which is a group of full-time, academic scientists who try to give context to the headlines. That article was reacting to the assertion that planting a bunch of trees would remove 2/3 of the carbon we have put into the atmosphere. Their answer:
- yes, trees are good
- no, it will only remove 1/3
- it will actually remove less per year than we are adding
- it will take 50-100 years to have an effect
- it might be longer because at high latitudes it will be slower
Therefore, we need to do the reforestation AND all the other stuff. Essentially, they are reacting to the magical thinking in the mainstream media when the study got picked up that left the impression that if we just plant a bunch of trees, it's all going to be okay.
I thought...and I need to look this up, but I thought that sea algae was a more efficient and faster way to fix the climate.
Ah yes:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-algae-can-evolve-fast-to-tackle-climate-change/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/forests-of-seaweed-can-help-climate-change-without-fire/
QuoteThere's a catch. "The technology doesn't yet exist" to sequester seaweed in the deep ocean, notes Froehlich.
On the other hand, we do know how to grow and maintain forests.