
In a warming world, New England’s trees are storing more carbon - chmaynard
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/new-englands-trees-capturing-more-carbon-says-25-year-study/
======
seanwilson
For the people here promoting planting more trees and new technology as a
solution, have you seriously considered:

1) How many existing forests we wouldn't have to cut down if we transitioned
away from meat & dairy ?

2) How much extra space that would also give us to plant more trees?

3) How much green house gas are from animal farming in the first place?

[https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-
diets](https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets):

\- There's 104 million km^2 of habitable land on earth

\- 40 million km^2 goes to meat & dairy (includes grazing land + land used for
crops for animal feed)

\- 11 million km^2 goes to plants to feed humans

\- 83% of the global calorie supply for humans comes from plants vs 18% from
meat (i.e. meat is very inefficient)

\- Demand for meat is going to continue going up so deforestation is going to
keep going up: "As we get richer, our diets tend to diversify and per capita
meat consumption rises; economic development unfortunately exerts an
increasing impact on land resources. If we want per capita meat consumption to
be able to rise sustainably at lower incomes, per capita meat consumption at
high incomes will have to decrease."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production):

> the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has estimated that
> agriculture (including not only livestock, but also food crop, biofuel and
> other production) accounted for about 10 to 12 percent of global
> anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (expressed as 100-year carbon dioxide
> equivalents) in 2005[58] and in 2010.[59]

Planting trees and new technology might buy us some time, but if our idealised
lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable, we'll be back in the same situation
again soon enough. I feel this uncomfortable truth is ignored by well meaning
people. Waiting for lab grown meat isn't a realistic option either.

~~~
toto444
Governments have a hard time making people wear a mask that can save their
lives and the one of their families. I can't imagine forcing them to stop
eating meat being a solution.

And if you stop eating meat yourself there is absolutely no guarantee that it
has any impact at all. If enough people do it they may marginally decrease the
demand for meat and lower its price but for this price some people will start
eating more meat and the net result is null.

~~~
seanwilson
> And if you stop eating meat yourself there is absolutely no guarantee that
> it has any impact at all. If enough people do it they may marginally
> decrease the demand for meat and lower its price but for this price some
> people will start eating more meat and the net result is null.

Can you back this up? It defies logic to me that giving up meat, increasing
the market for non-meat products and setting an example to others around to
follow doesn't reduce animal farming. Not the best source but:

[https://uk.veganuary.com/blog/one-person-going-vegan-wont-
ma...](https://uk.veganuary.com/blog/one-person-going-vegan-wont-make-
difference)

> We can see tangible changes in the farming industry specifically because
> people are going vegan. In the UK in 2016, sales of fresh meat fell by £328
> million, fresh milk by £54 million and cheese by £73 million just in one
> year! Since then red meat sales have continued to fall. And the UK with its
> more than half a million vegans is not alone.

> In the US, sales of meat have been declining for a decade, plant-based milk
> sales are worth $4.2 billion, and thinktank RethinkX predicts that both the
> beef and dairy industries will be defunct by 2030.

> In Canada, meat consumption has been described as being 'in a decades-long
> slump' with 38 per cent of Canadians now saying they have reduced their meat
> consumption.

> In Australia, which is the third-fastest growing vegan market in the world
> behind China and the United Arab Emirates, sales of dairy are in decline as
> young people turn their backs on cheese and cows’ milk. Now, 2.5 million
> Australians are either fully or almost vegetarian. And in Germany, 10 per
> cent of people are already meatless.

~~~
MperorM
Oh Common, the point is just that any individual reducing their meat intake,
will reduce total meat consumption less than the amount that individual
consumed.

That's hard to argue against.

One counter argument would be that his/her analysis doesn't take into account
any other effects of reducing consumption, such as one's friends and family
also reducing consumption as direct consequence.

------
WalterBright
It's obvious that planting more trees (lots more trees) are an important
component to reducing atmospheric carbon levels.

I'm astonished that there aren't national programs globally aimed at en-
forestation.

(Trees also provide building materials - what a great way to sequester
carbon!)

~~~
jcranmer
> (Trees also provide building materials - what a great way to sequester
> carbon!)

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but maybe companies should brand non-recycled paper
products as carbon-sequestered paper instead, and tell people to send it to
landfill rather than recycle it for maximum sequestration purposes.

~~~
schoen
Landfill might not be totally ideal because if it decomposes there, some of
the carbon may eventually leave the landfill if gas is able to escape.

I wonder if we should compost paper instead of recycling it? Or try to vitrify
it?

~~~
mytailorisrich
Paper, like trees, is carbon neutral in the sense that carbon is absorbed then
released. Zero net addition to the atmosphere.

Forests can be used to sequester carbon because of the large number of trees
continuously in existence even if individual trees come and go.

For paper, the sequestration angle is more dubious but should also be
considered based on the total amount of paper continuously in existence, not
on the longevity of a single sheet of paper.

------
reustle
If you are interested in the topic of reforestation / deforestation, I highly
suggest checking out the Global Forest Watch map

[https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/](https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/)

------
Kosirich
I'm glad that the trend of reforestation is happening in Europe and will
contribute to co2 capture. I think it's less due to deliberate efforts and
more a product of food production efficiency, closing of small farms and
people transitioning to urban env. Besides being noticeable on satellite
images it also affects local climate so in my area (NW Croatia) due to
reforestation they had to update the climate models due to forests holding
more moisture. (another side effect is increased number of wild boar)

------
kanobo
A question for an Entomologist - how does the woolly adelgid insect kill so
many trees so quickly? They look so small and cute, is it from sucking too
much sap from trees?

------
drewmol
Tldr _;

_ It's a very short article just read it

They measure carbon release from the soil of tree's, and data shows that the
trees are storing more carbon (actually, releasing less carbon if I understand
correctly) as they get older and larger, the trees referenced are 200+ years
old now. I don't see anything to justify the 'warming world' mentioned in the
title, but trees capture more carbon as they grow larger fwiw.

------
mrfusion
It makes me wonder if we should remove some percentage of fallen trees in
forests and sequester them? Otherwise all that co2 goes back into the
atmosphere.

------
cryptica
It's good to read about these kinds of studies. Ecologists typically don't
seem to account for evolution in their models for global warming. Nature is
excellent at adapting to changes. If there is a surplus of anything, certain
specimens will benefit from this surplus and nature will adapt and balance
things out.

~~~
lightgreen
It might take 100000 years to achieve the balance which will be quite
different balance (eg all people die and Earth populated with giant
crocodiles), but technically yes, nature will adapt and balance things out.

~~~
cryptica
I disagree about this. Populations can evolve rapidly within a few decades if
the selection pressures are significant enough. If you look at the farming
industry, there are many examples of evolution happening very quickly due to
artificial selection pressures. Within a few decades, cows evolved to produce
much more milk, chickens evolved to grow faster and produce large amounts of
eggs, fruits evolved to have smaller seeds, grow faster and look better.

Artificial selection pressures created by humans have a way of greatly
speeding up evolution.

