
Tree planting is a great idea that could become a dangerous climate distraction - smacktoward
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615102/tree-planting-is-a-great-idea-that-could-become-a-dangerous-climate-distraction/
======
thetrumanshow
>> And it’s hard to read Republican’s sudden enthusiasm for tree planting as
anything other than a cynical effort to dampen growing calls for the sorts of
regulations and taxes required to bring about those changes.

Rather than going scorched earth on common-ground, why not see it as a
stepping-stone, an opportunity to draw the other side toward your way of
seeing things... and maybe even suggest more small, achievable steps for the
other side to move in your direction rather than pulling out a cudgel?

~~~
smacktoward
Perhaps because the “other side” has spent thirty years fighting tooth and
nail to stop even the most modest attempts to address the problem?

When people spend that long telling you what they want, it’s generally safe to
believe them.

~~~
thetrumanshow
Probably so, but when someone steps in the direction you want them to go, its
not effective to whack them for it. If you want them to continue down your
path you say "Well done! But, can you take just one more small step?"

The hope is that these steps accumulate into something meaningful. A virtuous
upward spiral.

~~~
martingoodson
There is evidence that performing minor activities like tree planting actually
_reduces_ willingness to take meaningful action against climate change. This
is called the 'low cost' hypothesis [1].

If you wanted to reduce public pressure against fossil fuels you would
instigate something exactly like a tree planting program.

[1]
[https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v166y2019ic2.html](https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v166y2019ic2.html)

~~~
ars
> that performing minor activities

Can I assume you are also opposed to straw and plastic bag bans? Unlike tree
planting which at least does something, those bans are almost entirely
worthless.

~~~
mikeyouse
Neither of those have anything to do with climate change.

~~~
Charlie_26
Plastic production requires oil

~~~
8bitsrule
Plastic incineration creates CO2.

------
climate_realist
Honest question here, who actually thinks the political structures in place
today can provide the change needed in the timeframe we have? I'm honestly
putting those odds at < 1%. I mean, it looks like the only actual option is
geohacking, but that's not talked about much yet. The distraction is this
obsession with trying to make a broken system solve a problem it can't solve.

~~~
benjohnson
I have absolutely no confidence that this can be solved politically - the
societal measures required at the current time would cause an immediate civil
war.

However, I have full confidence that this can be solved technically if people
of good-will keep progressing to better, cheaper, and more economical
solutions.

~~~
nonbirithm
Some part of the solution will probably involve forcibly taking away some of
the freedoms people have.

We have the freedom in the United States to go out and buy a car and drive it
as much as one likes until it physically cannot be driven anymore. There is no
limit on the amount of fuel one can expend or emissions one person can make by
driving. And cars are a major contributor to the emissions problem.

If people are not willing to give up driving gasoline-powered cars because
they have the freedom to say no, will we simply abandon efforts to make people
change their driving habits or enforce greater restrictions on their
emissions?

It feels like a drastic solution, but the effects of climate change are also
drastic. I'm not sure they can be solved with feel-good measures like planting
trees when more and more people choose activities with emissions which will
wipe out any gains because it's convenient to do so in car-based societies and
everyone else does it.

EVs would be a good first step if we can manufacture enough, somehow convince
everyone there's enough personal benefit to switch and source electricity from
renewable sources. But most of the country still runs on gas at the moment.

~~~
smileysteve
The U.S. not only has the freedom, but the subsidization; be it roads that
aren't paying property tax, fuel taxes that don't earn enough to maintain
existing roads, delayed maintenance -- but all of the way to oil exploration
rights.

The 18.4c federal gasoline tax should be almost doubled to 34c, ignoring that
road construction costs have outpaced inflation.

Where car accidents were a leading cause of accidental injury and death
hospitals (especially rural) and have costs exceeding inflation and medical
debt is a major cause of bankruptcy and I hospital tax deduction.

------
exabrial
Tree planting is important, but tree harvesting is also important. A tree's
mass comes from C02 absorbed from the air, and hardly anything out of the
soil. Lumber products are an incredibly important carbon sink when done
correctly and the entire process needs to be measured for net negative effect.

------
Mikeb85
What's wrong with tree-planting? Unlike cutting back emissions which does
nothing to remove CO2 that's already in the air, trees actually do remove CO2
from the air.

~~~
gamblor956
Trees planted in the US and EU generally result in darkening the Earth's
albedo, meaning that the Earth absorbs _more_ solar energy than it otherwise
would, resulting in increased warming.

Trees planted in the tropical climates, especially in those areas where trees
were removed, generally have the opposite effect because they encourage cloud
formation, lightening the earth's albedo and reflecting more solar energy away
from the planet.

~~~
dr_dshiv
Citation, please.

