Tree plantations are not the environmental solution they’re purported to be

[ooterness]

https://archive.is/2JIMw

[wodenokoto]

Saudi spend a lot of effort promoting their Green program at COP28. They are aiming at 10 billion trees, if I remember correctly.

That place is a desert for a reason other than "nobody got around to planting trees". I really wonder what they need to do in order to start and maintain such a large forest. Will it ever become self sustainable?

[bertil]

I don’t know about the specific local conditions there, but there have been more violent floods in Yemen and the UEA.

Sudden precipitation is —oddly— somewhat common in Arabia and usually trickle through ergs, river beds empty most of the year, and sometimes captured by water walls, feeding oasis. The last few years have seen more violent incidents, overflowing ergs leading to floods, changes in temperature in the Indian Ocean, and more water in the monsoon-like pattern, I’m not sure.

It might make sense to adapt to the changing climate than the one they’ve known until now. If tree-supported water basins can handle more water than ergs, that might be relevant terraforming.

It’s the same in “Northern” Europe: Paris, Berlin, London, Amsterdam. Those cities had hot summers and needed fountains, but not so hot that they needed adaptations like shading all plazas with trees, having every building extend with parapets to shade the inside, etc. Paris has Venetian blinds (meant to let the air through but keep the sun out in summer), but they are not common in London, for instance. All those cities are now thinking of having gree water-culvert to complement storm drains.

Changing what we think of as normal might be necessary.

[pvaldes]

> That place is a desert for a reason

The same place was a rainforest once

[peteradio]

Aren't there a lot of desert areas that were created by overgrazing goats i.e. not natural?

[xjlin0]

Did they plant some mangrove which tolerates salt and grows at coast line?

[11235813213455]

Monocultures are just bad for the environment, it needs a lot of diversity and native species instead, basically just letting things grow is the solution along with consumming less, much less, spending less money (as money spent is roughly a unit of pollution)

[lyjackal]

In already destroyed eco systems, “Just letting things grow” tends to lead to unhealthy monoculture of invasive species. Where I live, it’s mostly a bunch of buckthorn, autumn olive, and honeysuckle. Maybe they’ll eventually heal themselves, but that’s on a much larger timescale than humans. Seems like a good idea for our own well being to contribute to healing those ecosystems faster.

[bertil]

I wish people didn’t confuse forests and tree farms.

[darth_avocado]

Tree plantation was supposed to be a supplement to protecting existing forests, not a replacement. Anyway, monoculture is bad. Restorative initiatives are way more effective.

On that note, I like Mossy Earth (https://www.mossy.earth/). They have a YouTube channel and a non profit that works on restorative initiatives. I’m not affiliated to them in any way, I just find their projects very interesting.

[oatmeal1]

The only solutions people with power are interested in are the ones that don't upset the status quo. Of course, those are the least effective solutions.

[votepaunchy]

A politician or party elected to “fight” climate change has no incentive to reduce emissions, just as pharmaceutical and health care companies have no incentive to improve health. The only incentive is for ineffective projects or changes so radical that other parties can be blamed for obstruction.

[specialist]

TLDR: Protect and restore forest ecosystems. Just planting a bunch of trees doesn't accomplish that.

I became a volunteer forest steward this year. I'm currently clearing invasives, to be replanted with locals.

Bioremediation and creating new forests is fascinating.

My "boss" has a whole playbook. Dozens of species carefully chosen for the site, planted just so, managed over time. Even factoring in soil conditions and "transplanting" soil from healthy areas.

In 30 years, we'll have a small new forest. Long after I pass on.

Wish I had studied biology and such when I was younger.

[nubinetwork]

Paywall

[nouryqt]

https://archive.is/2JIMw

[hn_throwaway_99]

I really, really loathe it when scientists advocate for something (in this case planting tons of trees) and then get faux shocked when people use that information to their economic benefit ("I didn't mean plant trees and still burn fossil fuels!")

A good analogy to me is the "anti-fat" nutrition crowd in the 90s (remember "the food pyramid" anyone??) I was reading an article about this whole debacle a while back, and remember one scientist lamenting "The advice on its own was good advice, but we never imagined the rise of Snack Wells." If anyone doesn't know, Snack Wells were a cookie brand in the 90s that were fat-free but loaded with sugar. They had the effect of getting you just as fat (they had a ton of calories), with probably a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, but with no fat they left you feeling hungry and they tasted a bit like cardboard.

But the scientist's defense was utter baloney. Of course if you convince the populace that fat is evil and you can avoid weight gain just by avoiding dietary fat that food companies will respond accordingly.

The same thing applies here. It's ridiculous for a scientist to think that his report about how planting lots of trees can counteract fossil fuel emissions wouldn't be latched on to by fossil fuel companies to say they "offset" their new emissions by planting more trees.

[Mordisquitos]

> Of course if you convince the populace that fat is evil and you can avoid weight gain just by avoiding dietary fat that food companies will respond accordingly.

But was it really scientists who convinced the populace that fat is evil? Or was it journalists, public commentators and business interests who convinced the populace that fat is evil, based on scientists' (retrospectively mistaken) results suggesting that substituting dietary fat in favour of carbohydrates was likely to improve certain health conditions?

[stetrain]

I think part of this is that a lot of “scientists say” advice that makes it to the mainstream is mostly a media creation.

Somewhere down the trail of sources is a scientific paper measuring the affect of a difference in X in Y specific population.

Then the magazine / newspaper / newsblog article comes out as “Is X killing you? Scientists say cut it out of your diet to live longer!”

And of course the population ends up being dismissive of “Science(tm)” when the articles on their Facebook feed alternate between “Scientists say X is good” and “Scientists say X will kill you” from week to week or month to month.

[idiotsecant]

So you 'loathe' not knowing every possible consequence of saying a true thing?

That seems a little overly hysterical.

[rdedev]

The problem I see with the US is that companies have been allowed to influence almost all sections of society. I'm pretty sure the scientist that time knew that fat on its own is not the issue(wet to getting more fat) when calories are controlled. That bit of nuance seems to be lost over time. I remember reading about how the sugar industry went on a PR campaign talking about how fat is bad and sugar is fine. If they was some pushback to this things might have been different

[xhkkffbf]

Exactly. Planting a tree should be good independent of anything the human does. That's kind of the point of science. We want to isolate effects and study them independently. And we want to study these effects independently of any political spin. Then society can make a smart decision.

[F3nd0]

I still use a food pyramid as a reference to date! Is there any particular food pyramid you’re thinking of? The idea in itself seems very reasonable to me.

[buttercraft]

Soooo... scientists should not release their results? Scientists should make policy? Or what?

[WalterBright]

Fossil fuel companies don't have emissions, their customers do. When I drive my car, it's me emitting CO2, not the gas company.

But I know it's expedient to shift the blame to the oil companies.

[drewcoo]

A problem with science vs popular opinion is that science is gathering new knowledge that justifies reevaluating our old (often simple) patterns and adopting new (often more complex) ones. But people are resistant to change and also prefer simple solutions. I haven't seen any general solution to that.

The cases you cite began with simplified solutions, to try to get people to adopt change. Then it turned out that the solutions were actually oversimplified and harmful without broader context.

What should we do when clearly doing nothing is also a problem?

[timeon]

> A good analogy to me is the "anti-fat" nutrition crowd in the 90s

No need to go till 90s. We have now anti-sugar.

[bytearray]

The only real solution is fewer humans.

[jack_riminton]

You first