Yes we can plant a trillion trees

10

For comparison, there are around 3 trillion trees on Earth today, about half as many as before human influence.

3

u/ProphecyRat2 19d ago

One machine can do the work of a hundred humans in one hour.

The real problem has always been Civilization, tho now that it’s Industrial, they have speed up 1,000 years of Ecological destruction into the last 100 years.

The real answer will be for this Earth to Flood itself and drown the Machines and the Concrete Cancers that blights its surface.

🌬💨🌊🏭

Nothing will change, even when we plant a trillion tress, machines continue to cut down and till a trillion more, everything in their paths is destroyed to make space for more industrial development, so we will have no more soil to plant our trees in.

Protect this Planet, and in your local area, protect the green, wherever it grows is Regeneration🌱

12

u/lbktort 19d ago

I mean as long as we're not planting trees in grasslands, peat bogs, etc. and are planting native trees. Sure. But planting trees just to plant trees can be damaging.

11

u/CowBoyDanIndie 19d ago

But planting trees just to plant trees can be damaging.

We need to plant forest, entire ecosystem, not just trees, as many native species as possible. Walk around a forest, its not just trees. Planting rows of trees makes a tree farm not a forest.

4

u/Bogtrotterso1980 19d ago

However planting not in rows is extremely labor intense while rows can be done quickly. You can only plant for a short period every year. Plus trees are ruthless competitors that kill their weaker neighbors by starving the to death. Rows quickly disappear as the strongest trees grow in and the weak ones die. Only precommercial thinning operations to favor maximum yields will keep it looking like a tree farm such thinning would also remove volunteers that came in on their own adding bio diversity. 30 to 40 years? Yeah it looks like rows 60 to 80 and you can't tell.

Suny esf ranger school class of 08 and former tribal foresters who oversaw planting and reforestation projects and logging operations and current farmer

1

u/ChappyBungFlap 18d ago

There are several companies trying to do aerial seeding with drones. Could potentially reduce the labour intensity exponentially if it works.

1

u/lbktort 19d ago

Yeah, agreed. the pic in the article looked like a monoculture to me.

1

u/CowBoyDanIndie 19d ago

Yea, it seems every time I see something about planting trees its a bunch of rows of the same tree or something like that, but it could be lazy stock images.

3

u/Bogtrotterso1980 19d ago

Agreed or its in a harsh climate that can only grow one type of tree like at the tree line in the rock mountains or how gray birch is the only thing growing on mine tillings outwash.

Just about every plantation I have seen that didn't have commercial thinning work done has a lot of volunteers mixed in. Spruce and pine plantations mixed with birch ash maple elm and poplar or cottonwood is very common.

4

u/Quixophilic 19d ago

We need to plant carbon sink trees, cut them, bury them deep, repeat. it sucks but any trees we plant now will still be subject to droughts and forest fires afterwards, releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere.

Obviously we should also replant native ecosystems back ASAP for biodiversity's sake, but the above is also needed en-masse for our own carbon management.

1

u/Chris_in_Lijiang 19d ago

Which species are the best carbon sink trees?

1

u/mavnorman 19d ago

According to Bloomberg New Finance, Paulownia is maybe the fastest growing tree. Supposedly, it can sequester 250 metric tons of CO2 per hectare per year. I wasn't able to find another source for their claims, however.

Common suggestions for agroforestry are poplar (10 - 15 metric tons) and willow (5 - 10 metric tons). They regrow after being cut, so they provide stable income. Bamboo would be another option, but I'm not sure whether it's a tree.

In a broader context, it's possible to bury all sorts of biological feedstocks when using pyrolysis. Then, one can use all sorts of grasses which often grow fast. Examples would be reed canary grass, giant reed, switchgrass, hemp, napier grass, miscanthus-x-giganteus, or even corn (with up to 40 metric tons per hectare).

1

u/Chris_in_Lijiang 18d ago

Thank you

1

u/kongweeneverdie 19d ago

Paulownia

Practically, there is no best. But there are species that suit the given climate and environment.

2

u/AmputatorBot 19d ago

It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.

You might want to visit the canonical page instead: https://time.com/6093342/1-trillion-trees-climate-change/

^{I'm a bot |}^{Why & About}^|^{Summon me with u/AmputatorBot}

1

u/pants_mcgee 19d ago

Sure, and then we need to cut those trillion tree down, bury them, and plant a trillion more. For the next several hundred years, maybe a millennia.

1

u/lolderpeski77 19d ago

Gotta be trees in forests around the equator. Elsewhere won’t make much of a difference.

1

u/Chris_in_Lijiang 19d ago

Why does the equator make so much difference?

1

u/lolderpeski77 19d ago

Because that’s where the world’s rainforests are and a climate that is conducive to plenty of fast tree growth.

2

u/KosmicKanuck 19d ago

There's rainforests in Canada, the southern most latitude is 49 degrees. Maybe the trees at the equator grow faster, but the trees here grow huge and to say replanting forests here doesn't make any difference just isn't true. Every tree makes a difference.

Focus on the equator? Sure

Don't bother anywhere else because there's no point? Wrong.

1

u/lolderpeski77 18d ago

Yea those are temperate rainforests and some scientists suggest planting trees in snowy regions can cause greater solar radiation absorption and thus more heating. I’m not just spitting out my ass but since it seems you need the sauce here you go:

https://www.wired.com/story/we-might-not-be-planting-the-right-kinds-of-forests/

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/planting-trees-climate-change-carbon-capture-deforestation

https://www.communitycarbontrees.org/climate-change-solutions

1

u/KosmicKanuck 18d ago

The first 2 articles mostly addressed other issues like monoculture. The pic in article 1 is ridiculous, yeah. They definitely shouldn't be planting trees in places like that. The third has one paragraph saying trees blocking snow cover can be bad. I can assure you not all of Canada is permanently covered in snow. Especially in the rainforest I am referring to. And even in the month or two there is snow the trees are covered in it too. Are you saying the logging companies should just leave it as a clear cut then and not bother replanting?

0

u/lolderpeski77 18d ago

Read the last article again. Doesn’t look good to conveniently overlook the major points of planting around the equator.

0

u/KosmicKanuck 18d ago

Read my first reply to you again. I didn't deny that would be better. I said to say planting elsewhere won't make a difference is wrong. Because it is.

0

u/lolderpeski77 18d ago

You want to combat climate change? Plant trees around the equator.

You want to feel good about yourself? Go plant a tree in your backyard.

0

u/KosmicKanuck 18d ago

"If it's not the best solution it has absolutely no effect."

That's some solid logic.

→ More replies

1

u/Chris_in_Lijiang 19d ago

Ok, thank you

1

u/Smash55 19d ago

Consult the indigenous and the robust of thought