Should We Be Planting More Trees?

[bhobba]

A very popular activity here in Australia is the planting of trees for all sorts of reasons.

I am a huge supporter in order to offset the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

But an article in Scientific American thinks it is critical to remove CO2:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-removal-is-catching-on-but-it-needs-to-go-faster/

It may be behind a paywall (because I am a subscriber I can't tell) but it is based, at least in part, on the following paper:
https://www.stateofcdr.org/

What do people think? It is one of those win-win sort of things. People, at least here in Aus, love forests with easily accessible areas for barbecues, picnics etc especially if there is a little creek, steam or pond to play in. Many memories from my childhood.

We are doing a lot of it here in Aus. Should we be doing more worldwide?

Thanks
Bill

 

[BillTre]

In general I am very much in favor of this.
I suppose there might be particular cases where it might cause problems, but mostly not.

Swamp and wetlands are also good.
Beavers building dams is a god example of this. They can transform a dry landscape into a lush verdant oases that can supports lots of other plants and animals.

Don't think there are beavers in Australia. Too bad. They store water like trees store carbon.

 

[Baluncore]

Yes, but we must do it in a way that does not increase the risk of wildfires, and we must avoid monoculture plantations, where the trees all have the same age.

Trees moderate soil and surface temperatures. Without trees or shrubs, the productive organic part of the soil is lost, it becomes a desert.

 

[bhobba]

Trees moderate soil and surface temperatures. Without trees or shrubs, the productive organic part of the soil is lost, it becomes a desert.

As we know only too well in Australia.

Thanks
Bill

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a fan too, but unfortunately today it is popular to declare biomass to be carbon neutral, so it doesn't matter how fast you burn-down forests. Over the extremely long-term it is carbon neutral(once all the trees are gone or we reach a stable amount), so the question is: how much storage is there in forests? Here's a link with some math:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions

It says a forest the size of New Mexico would store the USA's annual carbon emissions. A separate google tells me we're deforesting the planet at a rate of a third of that per year.

Put another way: if deforestation were a country it would be the 4th largest carbon emitter. Reversing that would be nice.

 

[BillTre]

Biomass is a dynamic storage.
The rates going in and out of it can balance out to a plus or minus.
There is also biomass that is no longer alive, like oil, peat, and similar stuff.
Its when this stuff gets into the atmosphere the climate gets affected.

Rapidly growing forests sequester carbon.
Building house of wood sequesters carbon from dead biomass.
This would be a benefit of rapidly growing forests that get harvested for building.

Standing biomass holds carbon for a while. Its a dynamic storage.

 

[Rive]

What do people think?

I think instead of a dumb forestation it should be the restoration of the natural vegetation, with just a slight bias for trees where it's viable, or made to be viable by artificial means.

Please mind that it's an ongoing study which is not aligned with the mainstream 'green': link
Maybe the references there can be of use.

 

[BillTre]

Another way to think about all that happens to the carbon and biomass is to think about the carbon cycle which actually a whole bunch of different cycles interconnecting different sources and sinks:

 

[Andy Resnick]

There seem to be efforts to use mangroves to remediate coastal areas (salt water intrusions and heavy metal contamination):

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119670391.ch26

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...ever, mangroves remediate HMs in,et al., 2016).

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Mentor review and possible cleanup...

 

[berkeman]

A post violating our Global Warming rules has been deleted, along with a couple well-meaning replies to it. Thread is reopened provisionally.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Yes, but we must do it in a way that does not increase the risk of wildfires, and we must avoid monoculture plantations, where the trees all have the same age.

According to my ex, a Ph.D in edaphology, monoculture refers to having only one species of plant in an area. This is dangerous as it increases the chance of a botanical epidemic that wipes out all of the plants. I'm sure, though, not having them all the same age would help as well when one considers elms and such.

 

[Baluncore]

I'm sure, though, not having them all the same age would help as well when one considers elms and such.

Newly established plantations have enormous water requirements, so the soil becomes very dry, and the plantation is a fire hazard that will burn the organic material from the soil. If the soil can remain cool and moist, shaded from wind and sun, then the next generation will grow where and when there is an opening for that species.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Newly established plantations have enormous water requirements, so the soil becomes very dry, and the plantation is a fire hazard that will burn the organic material from the soil. If the soil can remain cool and moist, shaded from wind and sun, then the next generation will grow where and when there is an opening for that species.

This is too funny; I texted my ex (we're on friendly-ish terms) about this and she replied more or less the exact same thing. Always nice to know she hasn't forgotten anything as it's been years since she's worked in the field.