Planting trees-A good thing?- A bad thing?

[freeztar]

Lots more at site

A dirty way to fight climate change - Yahoo! News

 

That article is not to be trusted as there are many wrong assumptions. I'll outline some of my concerns below:

 

Soil needs "riches" such as carbon, organic matter, and mineral nutrients, and they come in part from the "litter" left by plants that grow and die annually on the land.

By planting trees in soils that were created by other, more productive plants (e.g., prairie and wetland plants that used to occupy some of today's farmland), less litter is produced.

 

What? Trees are the most prolific producer of natural litter. Ever heard of a rake?

That means less carbon and organic matter are contributed to the soil, causing it to deteriorate.

 

This is simply not true. It can be true, but is hardly a universal case.

 

In some areas, planted trees can dewater the soil.

 

Trees, regardless of planted or natural, DO dewater the soil. All plants take water from the soil.

 

They can also release nitrogen and phosphorous in runoff that enters rivers, lakes, and estuaries and hurts water quality.

 

This one made my jaw drop. Trees do not hurt water quality. Nitrogen and phosphorous runoff? Give me a break...

 

More worrisome, some forested areas are becoming more vulnerable to wildfires, because changing precipitation patterns and the associated drying effects are creating a tinderbox.

These changes appear to be resulting in bigger and more frequent fires (e.g., very recently in California).

 

This is precisely the argument that Bush used to justify massive logging operations in Oregon.

 

Ecological lesson No. 1 is that we should plant trees only where the soils will benefit from it.

 

Hmmm....how about we should only plant trees where the soils will allow it.

The corollary, lesson No. 2, is not to plant trees where inappropriate, for example, in farmland that used to be wetlands and grasslands.

 

Yeah, cause we wouldn't want trees in wetlands. :confused:

 

Native, deep-rooted plants should be grown in those areas instead, since they enrich the soil – with carbon, among other things – more quickly.

 

Deep-rooted plants eh? You mean, like, trees!

 

Lesson No. 3 is that, in the face of drought and increased wildfires, rebuilding soils is a safer strategy for storing carbon.

 

Perhaps...

 

There are two ways to do this. First, restore conservation lands – which are not used for farming – with deep-rooted grassland or wetland plants, which sequester carbon more effectively than trees do.

 

I like to think of the amount of carbon a plant can store in direct relation to it's biomass. Hence, an acre of trees will sequester more carbon than an acre of grass.

[freeztar]

A copy of an email I just received re a query I had about whether all these "feel good" tree planting schemes/scams really helped Global Warming.

 

The only evidence I had seen was that tropical forests did sequester Co2 temperate forest did notsequester Co2.

What do you think?

 

I think trees sequester carbon, period!

Is the science in yet?

 

Yes. Trees "breathe-in" carbon dioxide, break it apart and release oxygen. So CO2 -> O2. But wait, what happened to the carbon. It was used to build the structural cells that give the tree it's upright strength.

 

Can we all rush out and donate to, or plant a tree?

 

Yes!

[Michaelangelica]

Well- I would like to believe the science is in, for temperate forests.

I have only ever seen one research paper (from China) that suggests it might.

Many do believe and are making money from it.

If you go to a rock concert now they add a couple of $s for a tree to be planted to offset your carbon.

EG

Greening Australia - making Womadelaide carbon neutral

 

Womadelaide acknowledges the need to measure its environmental performance and aims to remove its ecological footprint.

 

ZERO NET EMISSIONS – A CLEAN AND GREEN EVENT

 

For the first time the 2007 Womadelaide festival was a Carbon Neutral event through tree plantings by Greening Australia.

 

 

 

The amount of carbon generated by the Womadelaide event will be offset through the revegetation of native bushland in South Australia.

 

GA's carbon offset partner ACBI Ltd estimated the amount of carbon generated by the Womadelaide event through travel, lighting, power etc. ACBI's legal contracts permanently protect Womadelaide trees.

Greening Australia - making Womadelaide carbon neutral

[Ganoderma]

Why not letting Mother Nature bother and manage it itself?

If we try not to interfere or damage the eco system that much, it will get balance easily and automatically.

 

Well, if planting trees is to compensat our mistake of harming Nature, I think that should be a good thing.

 

they way we are going, the only way we wills top interfering with the forest is if we become extinct, or there is no forest left....BC, Canada is doing a GREAT job turning amazing forests into lovely brown earth and bare rock mountain sides....it is not just the amazon we need to worry about.

[freeztar]

Well- I would like to believe the science is in, for temperate forests.

 

You're right of course Mich. Science is amenable to change.

I have only ever seen one research paper (from China) that suggests it might.

 

From the wiki "Carbon dioxide sink":

In the United States in 2004 (the most recent year for which EPA statistics[10] are available), forests sequestered 10.6% (637 teragrams[11]) of the carbon dioxide released in the United States by the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas; 5657 teragrams[12]).

Carbon dioxide sink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here's an article claiming that more trees in temperate areas will have a net warming effect despite CO2 sequestration:

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-12-04.html

(Note that they say this effect happens after a couple hundred years. Note that trees just don't last that long before we cut them down. Also note that they make no mention of soil-based CO2 emmissions.)

 

I'd really like to see their methodology before putting much faith in their assertions. I wonder if they take night time temps into account. They claim that since trees are dark, they absorb more sunlight and cause a net warming effect. I find that hard to believe. It's like saying that adding char to the soil darkens the soil and creates an overall heating effect. ;)

 

Unfortunately, after a little searching on papers saying the opposite, I came up empty. :hyper:

[Michaelangelica]

. They claim that since trees are dark, they absorb more sunlight and cause a net warming effect. I find that hard to believe. It's like saying that adding char to the soil darkens the soil and creates an overall heating effect. :hyper:

 

Unfortunately, after a little searching on papers saying the opposite, I came up empty. :(

Wki is a worry as a source unless it is referenced ; but still, that is another + for trees.

 

You see my problem not a lot of research out there- not that I can find anyway.

The University of Western Sydney is looking at a long-term, CO2 sequestration experiment using Australian trees at the moment.

 

I don't want people rushing out and buying tree-farm-shares to find out in 10 years time that their efforts were wasted. It may put them off doing other things for the planet.

The CO2 debate is a bit like the marijuana debate. Initially it was fueled by outrageous lies. When kids tried marijuana, and they didn't die or go insane, the response was well " they might be lying about other drugs too."

 

As for trees being dark; have the 'researchers' ever been to Australia?;)

Australian trees reflect and disburse the light. The Blue Mountains are literally blue from a distance as the eucalyptus oil produces a blue haze over the mountains (seen from a distance).

Most places I have bush-walked (mostly in NSW )there is plenty of light reaching the ground even in local Littoral Rainforests.

When I was in Sherwood? Forest in England I was totally spooked :hyper: by how dark it was under the trees.:eek2: If I had been a medieval farmer I would have chopped the bloody things down too.(!)

I now have a new respect for Grimm's characters, Hansel and Gretel, and how scared they must have been.:eek2:

 

Roads made from tar probably absorb more heat than any forest. We could increase the albedo effect by making them white. but then they would probably be made from concrete (I tonne/ton Concrete=1 tonne/ton CO2)

Does enough furniture survive to be a CO2 sink?

Perhaps not these days. So much furniture is "particle board" (sawdust and glue with a plastic 'wood'grain vernier).

I see old lounges thrown out daily, locally. Also lots of wood waste I could turn into TP Char. if I had my own pyrolysis machine!

Still there must be some wood tied up in homes, and here in "Telegraph Poles" (power poles) and antique furniture.

So if I buy antique furniture I am helping the planet? :).

 

The pity of it all is that the one place where we know trees work is in the tropics. And that is where most devastation and clearing is occurring-Indonesia, Brazil. And the areas we have least control over.

Brazil was boasting about how the amount of land cleared had dropped a little last year. Big deal.

[InfiniteNow]

I just planted 10 young trees in my backyard, complete with charcoal chunks ground by me for the wea beasties. It was awesome, and I can't wait until they flower.

 

 

3 American Redbuds

 

 

 

4 White Flowering Dogwoods

 

 

 

3 Goldenraintrees

 

 

 

 

:lightning:turtle:

[freeztar]

Kudos on the redbuds and dogwoods, but why did you choose the golden raintree? It can become quite invasive in warm climates and is non-native to the US. You'll most likely need to stay on top of your weeding to keep it from growing rampant.

[InfiniteNow]

Kudos on the redbuds and dogwoods, but why did you choose the golden raintree? It can become quite invasive in warm climates and is non-native to the US. You'll most likely need to stay on top of your weeding to keep it from growing rampant.

 

They were all free for becoming a member of the National Arbor Day Foundation. Thanks for the head's up on the golden raintree. Yours is an opinion on this subject that I definitely trust. :lightning

[Mike C]

Angelica:

 

This is a luducrous choice.

 

Trees are absolutely essential to our planet as far as life is concerned.

 

All plants absorb CO2. Especially trees.

 

As I said on another website, trees are our natural air conditioners.

Not only do they refresh the air but they cool the planet as well.

 

Those wensites you posted, do not mention that the energy absorbed by the trees are 'converted' into growth. So this energy, in no way, can remain to contribute in any way to heating the planet.

 

The deforestation of these forests has destroyed large amounts of forests. so we should stop this practice and substitute steel, aluminum, concrete, plaster and etc to save the trees.

Even their leaves can be harvested in the fall to be used for composting in gardens or elsewere.

 

Cosmo

[Michaelangelica]

Angelica:

 

This is a luducrous choice.

Yes Mike, sorry my bad wording of the thread title.

I was mainly asking what people thought about trees in terms of global warming and carbon sequestration. There has been some strident criticism of tree planting schemes as a GW 'fix" But that is certainly not clear in the thread title.

My apologies for not being clearer.

 

I have before me an article from July 2006 "New Internationalist"

Basically it says that carbon credits from tree planting are a phony climate fix.

The reasons given ( in summary) are

• Carbon in trees in temporary & part of normal cycle of carbon exchange
  
• The release of fossil carbon in contrast is permanent. . and will accelerate climate change
  
• Fake credit.: Carbon credits from tree planting claim that carbon stored temporarily in tree plantations can justify permanent releases of fossil carbon into the atmosphere without any harm to the environment
  
• Big foot carbon credits from tree planting increase the ecological debt of the global north (I think because many programmes are in under-developed countries?)
  
• Carbon credits from tree planting provides new subsidy for tree planting industry . .
  
• forest lands of indigenous peoples are appropriated for tree monoculture
  
• Offsets allow emissions to continue under the false impression that they have been 'neutralised'
  
• Measuring carbon in forests is fraught with uncertainties. Scientist have found that estimates of carbon balance in canadian forests could vary by 1,000% if seemly small factors-like increased levels of atmospheric CO2-are taken into account.
  

The article also suggests two websites that I haven't had a good look at yet

SinksWatch

www.sinkswatch.org

An initiative to track and scrutinise carbon sink projects

 

The focus of SinksWatch is on tree plantation sinks projects, particularly in areas where land tenure and land use rights are in dispute. That said, to understand fully the flaws of carbon offset schemes involving tree planting we also provide analysis showing why carbon offsets generally are a dangerous distraction from the task at hand - drastically and swiftly reducing fossil fuel emissions.

and

FERN - Home

[freeztar]

Tree plantations could be large, long-term carbon sinks if the trees are charred and added to the soil. :lol:

[Michaelangelica]

Tree plantations could be large, long-term carbon sinks if the trees are charred and added to the soil. :)

Some bright sparks:lightning have already suggested that.

The answer is: NO :lol:

We like GREEN trees

 

We have plenty of chook **** to char first.(More per head of population than anyone -he states proudly)

Although I don't know why Australia sends boat loads of native-tree wood-chips to Japan all the time.

We would be better charcoaling it with pyrolysis (preferably)

 

Also if you don't burn Australian bush on a regular basis it eventually ends up in horrendous, impossible-to-stop, destructive wildfires that destroy all life..

Aborigines have been firing/farming the land for 50,000 (+?) years.

So many plants will not even germinate now without some fire.

 

God knows what this does to world CO2 levels.

www.sinkswatch.org

[Michaelangelica]

environment cartoons - offthemark.com - by Mark Parisi

[DougF]

Too funny! :shrug:

[Mike C]

Too funny! ;)

 

Seriously though, everyone should know that the trees and all plants are our 'natural' air conditioners.

They recycle the CO2 to oxygen to refresh our air and absorb large quantities of energy (photons) and convert this into growth.

So these photons are not reradiated back into the air as the deserts do.

 

I think the free oxygen that we breath comes from all the plants.

Oxygen is a very active gas that readily bonds with most all the elements.

So without the plants, we would not be able to survive.

 

Mike C

[Moontanman]

Michael, do you know how to stratify tree seeds to sprout them? Can you explain how it's done?