I planted some thousands of trees in Iceland in the noughties. I believe the program was funded by Alcoa to offset the carbon produced by an aluminum plant they were building on the island. They paid farmers to plant trees on unused land, and the farmers hired and hosted us to do the work. It was an amazing way to see the country. We mostly planted larch, birch and alder from what I remember. It is a very beautiful country, like an arctic Hawaii.
Are those trees native to Iceland? I would hope that they aren't just trying to increase forest cover using species that have the potential to be invasive.
Planting forests increases the overall amount of carbon stored in biomass, but the forestry program is also designed to harvest trees for use as fuel or building material (from the main article linked in the post):
> "In the meantime, Iceland’s forests have begun to produce wood for a small timber market. Forests planted between 1950-1970 are now supplying around 5,000 square metres of wood per year: miniscule compared to industries abroad, but a start. The Icelandic birch, Siberian larch, Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine and balsam poplar are producing quality wood of equal or superior quality to that which Iceland imports from abroad. Yet an overwhelming 80% of the trees felled are burned as fuel in silicon smelting."
Iceland has a silicon production industry, which relies on geothermal electricity interestingly enough. The wood is included to grab the oxygen from silicon dioxide to produce elemental silicon metal (being emitted as carbon dioxide). Overall, if they could eliminate the coal from the mix, this would be a carbon-neutral fossil-fuel free silicon production system:
> "Silicon metal is extracted from quartzite, aided by the addition of wood chip and coal, in electric arc furnaces at temperatures of around 2,000 degrees Celsius. The new plant obtains its key raw material quartzite primarily from PCC’s own quarry in Zagórze, Poland. However, the related logistical costs are more than outweighed by the advantages of electricity procurement. And the dust emissions generated during silicon metal production are almost completely removed from the ambient air by high-performance filter systems installed in the PCC plant. Taken as a whole, therefore, the production process offers exceptional sustainability credentials."
I have been donating some money every month to an Icelandic tree planting project to offset my carbon emissions after reading an article on HN about how the Vikings cut all trees of the island. I find the numbers fascinating :
> Forests and bushes now cover over 2% of Iceland, Vísir reports. That number may not seem like much, but since 1990, the surface area covered by forest or shrubs in Iceland has increased more than six times over – from 7,000 hectares to 45,000. In 20 years, the number is expected to be 2.6%.
And from another article :
> The Forest Service intends to deliver six million plants this year, says Þröstur, which is equivalent to pre-crash levels of production. “It was around five million last year, and four million the year before that. This is a rapid increase. Then we need seven to eight million next year, which we may not manage, and ten to twelve in 2025.”
If the goal is to sequester as much CO2 as possible, it's much better to support tropical rainforest than planting trees near the arctic circle. The Coalition of Rainforest Nations is consistently cited as one of the most impactful NGO's in terms of carbon saved.
I'm all for planting more Icelandic trees, but I don't think you're getting as much bang for your buck as you could.
Just a note that two of the best things you can do for your own carbon emissions is to compost all organic material instead of throwing it out and planting native plants, trees, shrubs, and reducing the size of your lawn while also mowing what's left less frequently.
There are also islands in croatia and all over the med that are barren from venetian shipbuilding centuries ago as well. Shipbuilding stripped a lot of forests in europe.
I just came from a trip to Iceland and most of the country had no trees. Some corners had a little, there were also obvious plantations. There was one place that had old forest and was in other respects very magical: Ásbyrgi Canyon. Just downstream from Dettifoss which was an insane experience by itself.
From what I have gathered the biggest obstacle to tree regrowth in Iceland are sheep which can roam anywhere in the island for I think 4 months in the year and just eat saplings.
Obviously the sheep farming industry does not want to hear about limiting their herding areas and you can guess the result.
Great news -- Ireland is another country in bad need of reforesting. The British took all our trees to build their navy and Irish farmers finished off what little remained. We have very few old growth forests as a result.
> The British took all our trees to build their navy and Irish farmers finished off what little remained.
That's something of a myth. Most of the deforestation in Ireland occurred long before the plantations (even BCE). While trees were cut for shipbuilding, deforestation was primarily the result of agriculture and a booming population pre-famine.
It would help if we didn't have a cultural dislike of trees. I'm getting tired of "You'll be wantin' to cut them trees down for light" when people see my house.
I think that Ireland was largely deforested in prehistory by early settlers.
Short cycle rotation cropping of Sitka spruce is about all that's been done about it in independent Ireland.
> The British took all our trees to build their navy
Not only that, they took our young men to fight in their colonial armies; and deracinated the educated to serve as middeling officials in their colonial governments!
Anyway, I'm being ironic, the Irish were part of the colonial project as much as working class factory workers were in Manchester were.
Some interesting replies to your comment. As you included an interesting sentence claiming the trees were taken by the British I just wanted to ask what your thoughts on that were now?
But in the sagas all the Icelandic outlaws would instead travel overseas (quite literally, since Iceland is surrounded by sea) - which now makes a lot of sense to me knowing that Iceland was already deforested early on, so there wasn't really a lot of forest to go to.
Perhaps related: Sweden is one of the very few European countries that never had serfdom. Swedish peasants were of course dirt poor, but they were free citizens, and had 1/4 of the voting power in the ancient version of parliament¹.
The reason I've heard for this is that most of the country was (and is) forest. Enough forest that you can hide from, and/or ambush, anyone coming to mess with you.
From the title, I expected they were sounding an alarm that they are losing forests. It appears the opposite is happening. Really bewildering, given how just a couple centuries ago for most European countries having less than 70%+ forest coverage would be an oddity.
> just a couple centuries ago for most European countries having less than 70%+ forest coverage would be an oddity.
70%+ seems a lot; I'm not sure where you got that number from? For example in [1] mentions about 15% in 1086 for England, [2] mentions ~2% 1750 for the Netherlands and ~11% in 1775 for Belgium. Numbers will undoubtable differ for other countries, but 70%+ is really a lot.
Neolithic people already cleared a lot of forest for agriculture in Europe, which happened thousands of years ago. In some countries (such as the Netherlands) forests have actually grown in the last few centuries (from the ~2% in 1750 mentioned before to ~10% today).
Iceland had "only" about 30% forest before settlers arrived.
Ok, one of the things that totally bugged me about the Viking tv show's visit to Iceland is that it only showed the harshest of environments, not the forests that used to exist there when the vikings colonized the island.
Peat was used heavily, as well as animal dung and there was drift wood (not a stable source though, and mostly used for other endeavours). Also the fairly unique construction of the turf houses which had the animals living along side the humans, maximized the capture of body heat.
Then again, life in Iceland was cold, dark and miserable for centuries all the while nature kept trying to kill everyone.
Some interesting things in there beyond the more obvious things like hot springs, peat, and other biomass that Iceland would have. But drift wood being a thing that I did not think off. Of course, there would have been some forests initially and also the ability to import timber and other materials from elsewhere in exchange for some of the exports (fish, whale oil, etc.).
To the latter part of your question, the main strategy was:
- Build incredibly insulated turf+stone housing
- Put livestock in the basement
- Body warmth of livestock heats up the house during winter
- The good insulation keeps the home temperature liveable all winter
Rather than relying on the aggresive burning of wood in a fireplace, they relied on the consistent burning of livestock's body temperatures fed by a store of feedstock grown in the prior Summer.
This is great. But it isn't nearly enough to offset the amount of forest burning due to climate change right now. In just one area, Siberia in 2022 there have been 100,000 hectares of forests destroyed by wildfires.
This article says that in all of Iceland there are now 45,000 hectares of forest. So there is 225% more land burning in Siberia this year alone compared to all the forest planted in Iceland.
On a trip through Scotland, we were driving through some backroads and all of a sudden, there would be a forest with clear lines along some property boundry. The trees were more or less the same. It was essentially a tree farm. Apparently the Brits started offering special tax incentives to get people to plant trees and many listened.
Slightly off topic: I was recently in Iceland and the country is covered in Alaskan lupine that was introduced decades ago and has now become invasive. The result is these blue tinged landscapes. According to the tour guide, there is some benefit as the Alaskan lupine improves the soil (I don't know how true this actually is).
The most interesting fact was that Iceland was 40% forested when settlers arrived. I'm not sure their goal is to return to 40%, but certainly a long way to go at 2.6% 20 years from now.
[+] [-] elevaet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomsthumb|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dukeofdoom|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] photochemsyn|3 years ago|reply
> "In the meantime, Iceland’s forests have begun to produce wood for a small timber market. Forests planted between 1950-1970 are now supplying around 5,000 square metres of wood per year: miniscule compared to industries abroad, but a start. The Icelandic birch, Siberian larch, Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine and balsam poplar are producing quality wood of equal or superior quality to that which Iceland imports from abroad. Yet an overwhelming 80% of the trees felled are burned as fuel in silicon smelting."
Iceland has a silicon production industry, which relies on geothermal electricity interestingly enough. The wood is included to grab the oxygen from silicon dioxide to produce elemental silicon metal (being emitted as carbon dioxide). Overall, if they could eliminate the coal from the mix, this would be a carbon-neutral fossil-fuel free silicon production system:
https://www.pcc.is/
> "Silicon metal is extracted from quartzite, aided by the addition of wood chip and coal, in electric arc furnaces at temperatures of around 2,000 degrees Celsius. The new plant obtains its key raw material quartzite primarily from PCC’s own quarry in Zagórze, Poland. However, the related logistical costs are more than outweighed by the advantages of electricity procurement. And the dust emissions generated during silicon metal production are almost completely removed from the ambient air by high-performance filter systems installed in the PCC plant. Taken as a whole, therefore, the production process offers exceptional sustainability credentials."
[+] [-] toto444|3 years ago|reply
> Forests and bushes now cover over 2% of Iceland, Vísir reports. That number may not seem like much, but since 1990, the surface area covered by forest or shrubs in Iceland has increased more than six times over – from 7,000 hectares to 45,000. In 20 years, the number is expected to be 2.6%.
And from another article :
> The Forest Service intends to deliver six million plants this year, says Þröstur, which is equivalent to pre-crash levels of production. “It was around five million last year, and four million the year before that. This is a rapid increase. Then we need seven to eight million next year, which we may not manage, and ten to twelve in 2025.”
[+] [-] pasiaj|3 years ago|reply
Finland has 23 million hectares (76%) of forest cover.
http://www.metla.fi/metinfo/sustainability/finnish.htm
[+] [-] bloppe|3 years ago|reply
I'm all for planting more Icelandic trees, but I don't think you're getting as much bang for your buck as you could.
[+] [-] bmitc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frxx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mynameishere|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seunosewa|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdff|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jnsaff2|3 years ago|reply
From what I have gathered the biggest obstacle to tree regrowth in Iceland are sheep which can roam anywhere in the island for I think 4 months in the year and just eat saplings.
Obviously the sheep farming industry does not want to hear about limiting their herding areas and you can guess the result.
[+] [-] s_dev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] closewith|3 years ago|reply
That's something of a myth. Most of the deforestation in Ireland occurred long before the plantations (even BCE). While trees were cut for shipbuilding, deforestation was primarily the result of agriculture and a booming population pre-famine.
https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/general-topics/...
[+] [-] CalRobert|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] profunctor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stormdennis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonthonax|3 years ago|reply
Not only that, they took our young men to fight in their colonial armies; and deracinated the educated to serve as middeling officials in their colonial governments!
Anyway, I'm being ironic, the Irish were part of the colonial project as much as working class factory workers were in Manchester were.
[+] [-] badcppdev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Akronymus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiaq|3 years ago|reply
But in the sagas all the Icelandic outlaws would instead travel overseas (quite literally, since Iceland is surrounded by sea) - which now makes a lot of sense to me knowing that Iceland was already deforested early on, so there wasn't really a lot of forest to go to.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|3 years ago|reply
The reason I've heard for this is that most of the country was (and is) forest. Enough forest that you can hide from, and/or ambush, anyone coming to mess with you.
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksdag_of_the_Estates
[+] [-] warpech|3 years ago|reply
- What should you do if you get lost in a forest?
- Stand up! (other version: Just get off your knees!)
[+] [-] BurningFrog|3 years ago|reply
1 kg of dry wood captures 1.65-1.80 kg of CO₂.
Not because the tree is bigger on the inside, but because the oxygen atoms are most of the CO₂ weight.
Source: https://www.paperonweb.com/A1110.htm
[+] [-] yakubin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Beltalowda|3 years ago|reply
70%+ seems a lot; I'm not sure where you got that number from? For example in [1] mentions about 15% in 1086 for England, [2] mentions ~2% 1750 for the Netherlands and ~11% in 1775 for Belgium. Numbers will undoubtable differ for other countries, but 70%+ is really a lot.
Neolithic people already cleared a lot of forest for agriculture in Europe, which happened thousands of years ago. In some countries (such as the Netherlands) forests have actually grown in the last few centuries (from the ~2% in 1750 mentioned before to ~10% today).
Iceland had "only" about 30% forest before settlers arrived.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-en...
[2]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bos_(begroeiing)#Oppervlakte
[+] [-] zip1234|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnycomputer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andai|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrDresden|3 years ago|reply
Then again, life in Iceland was cold, dark and miserable for centuries all the while nature kept trying to kill everyone.
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|3 years ago|reply
Some interesting things in there beyond the more obvious things like hot springs, peat, and other biomass that Iceland would have. But drift wood being a thing that I did not think off. Of course, there would have been some forests initially and also the ability to import timber and other materials from elsewhere in exchange for some of the exports (fish, whale oil, etc.).
[+] [-] probablypower|3 years ago|reply
- Build incredibly insulated turf+stone housing
- Put livestock in the basement
- Body warmth of livestock heats up the house during winter
- The good insulation keeps the home temperature liveable all winter
Rather than relying on the aggresive burning of wood in a fireplace, they relied on the consistent burning of livestock's body temperatures fed by a store of feedstock grown in the prior Summer.
[+] [-] kzrdude|3 years ago|reply
And like others mentioned here, widespread sheep & goat farming can keep the new saplings down.
Not a source, but an interesting story about iron in Iceland: https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text...
[+] [-] blondie9x|3 years ago|reply
This article says that in all of Iceland there are now 45,000 hectares of forest. So there is 225% more land burning in Siberia this year alone compared to all the forest planted in Iceland.
[+] [-] xhkkffbf|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olddustytrail|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julienchastang|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlwaysRock|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martini333|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnordpiglet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tims33|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BurningFrog|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] User23|3 years ago|reply