@Fire , while I agree wholeheartedly with you that it can be all too easy to blame population increase for too many of the world's ills without looking at the distribution of resources within that overall population , in my view it is equally incomplete an analysis to presume that the exponential rate of population growth since the 1800s is not a factor at all regarding climate emissions.
Sure, but it's a descriptor, not concerned with immediate solutions. I'm more interested in solutions for today.
Sir David Attenborough, naturalist and broadcaster, Population Matters Patron (born 1926)
“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”
"I support Population Matters because I think if we keep on growing, we’re not only going to damage nature, but we’re likely to see more and more inequality and human suffering."
“One thing you can say is that in places where women are in charge of their bodies, where they have the vote, where they are allowed to dictate what they do and what they want, whether it’s proper medical facilities for birth control, the birth rate falls.”
“The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us.”
“As I see it, humanity needs to reduce its impact on the Earth urgently and there are three ways to achieve this: we can stop consuming so many resources, we can change our technology and* we can reduce the growth of our population.”
"Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we controlled the population to allow the survival of the environment."
*my italics
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
So trees as they grow suck CO2 from the atmosphere. All good. But unfortunately they don't last forever. Eventually they die, so whether it's fire or they just rot naturally they release back that CO2 into the atmosphere.
I understand they are other good reason why more trees do more good than not. They help biodiversity and wildlife, housing insects for example.
But do they provide a net reduction of CO2?
It's a little more complex than that - and you'd need alot of trees - but as somebody mentioned, keeping the ones we have is equally important. (Although Sheffield City Council didn't think so).
It's sort of intresting to note though that CO2 isn't the most harmful greenhouse gas - it's the most common as it results from burning fossil fuel, which is why it gets so much attention but methane is about 25 times potentially more harmful & Nitrous oxide 300 times potentially more harmful. Rice paddies are said to be responsible for about 20% of man-made methane emmisions. However, N2O emissions has - so I've read - increased by 35% over the last 20 years & the biggest culprit by far is agriculture - mainly by over-fertilization. N2O is potentially the real baddy that doesn't get nearly enough attention, especially when you consider it can remain in the atmosphere for decades. Having said all that, it's my view that climate science is barely out of nappies in terms of understanding and like all things connected to scientific theory & predictions you only need to be 'out' by a very small margin for that error to become catastrophic in 50-100 years time.
Well, as with the nature of population growth ... it takes time ... at least a generation ... so the sooner we start to slow it down the sooner it will have an effect
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
That depends on what happens to the tree after it dies. If it gets buried in the right conditions then yes that CO2 can be locked up for millions of years, otherwise the tree "only" takes it out of the atmosphere for 50 or 300 years depending on the tree.
So if you plant a Beech tree today and it lives it's full life it will lock up co2 for 150 years, so long as someone else plants one in 50 years and another in 100 years those trees combined will always have more CO2 locked up than if no one had planted the tree to begin with.
I agree completely with the general theme of what you are saying but have read previously of a much longer lifespan for some trees. There are a few beech trees close to the garden here that are hundreds of years old and this website claims in upland sites they can reach 400years old. Planted a good number of trees here and one of my more preferred choices sweet chestnut (which is very popular with the local squirrels) has been recorded to get to over a thousand years old. Also managed to plant a giant redwood and some of these are known to be over 3000years old so plenty of carbon storage potential there. That's not to say short lived trees don't have a good effect on our air quality as well. I think the fact roots of trees and some other plants help soil life to extend much deeper into the soil may also be a significant factor in helping CO2 remain locked up in organic forms in the soil rather than being released as much in to the atmosphere as might happen if there was nothing growing there.
The problem is that the co2 is currently in the wrong place. There is no problem with co2 being released and naturally processed but our influence has swung the balance in a negative way. We know trees are a simple solution to help and they are very beneficial in other ways as well.
The biggest issue is that as individuals we can try and do our part but it has to be every rung on the ladder that contributes and that simply isn't the case. For years we have talked about planting trees but there are loop holes even in this. Many farmers who got grants for planting new trees actually cleared forested areas to do so and then filled them with crop trees (palm oil), so what sounded like a very positive policy turned out to be an extremely detrimental one.
I agree completely with the general theme of what you are saying but have read previously of a much longer lifespan for some trees. There are a few beech trees close to the garden here that are hundreds of years old and this website claims in upland sites they can reach 400years old. Planted a good number of trees here and one of my more preferred choices sweet chestnut (which is very popular with the local squirrels) has been recorded to get to over a thousand years old. Also managed to plant a giant redwood and some of these are known to be over 3000years old so plenty of carbon storage potential there. That's not to say short lived trees don't have a good effect on our air quality as well. I think the fact roots of trees and some other plants help soil life to extend much deeper into the soil may also be a significant factor in helping CO2 remain locked up in organic forms in the soil rather than being released as much in to the atmosphere as might happen if there was nothing growing there.
Happy gardening!
Longer lived trees are in general slower growing, so they take up less CO2 per year than faster growing trees. However I am talking averages the average beech tree is not a particularly long lived tree, Life time can be extended by pollarding and other growth restriction such as poor soil or a cold area, but again it's just a toss up between lifespan and CO2 capture. If we wanted to pick trees with a high lifespan then yew or oak but both are very slow growing.
I agree completely with the general theme of what you are saying but have read previously of a much longer lifespan for some trees. There are a few beech trees close to the garden here that are hundreds of years old and this website claims in upland sites they can reach 400years old. Planted a good number of trees here and one of my more preferred choices sweet chestnut (which is very popular with the local squirrels) has been recorded to get to over a thousand years old. Also managed to plant a giant redwood and some of these are known to be over 3000years old so plenty of carbon storage potential there. That's not to say short lived trees don't have a good effect on our air quality as well. I think the fact roots of trees and some other plants help soil life to extend much deeper into the soil may also be a significant factor in helping CO2 remain locked up in organic forms in the soil rather than being released as much in to the atmosphere as might happen if there was nothing growing there.
Happy gardening!
Longer lived trees are in general slower growing, so they take up less CO2 per year than faster growing trees. However I am talking averages the average beech tree is not a particularly long lived tree, Life time can be extended by pollarding and other growth restriction such as poor soil or a cold area, but again it's just a toss up between lifespan and CO2 capture. If we wanted to pick trees with a high lifespan then yew or oak but both are very slow growing.
I have seen alright that the giant redwood has not been growing very fast but think when it is a bigger tree in time even a slower growth rate would still put on a significant amount of weight each year. I think the important point that some people have made is that if the land area stays as woodland and there is continuous tree cover with younger trees taking over from older ones then there would be a continued volume of CO2 kept out of the atmosphere in the biomass of the woodland. Soils in areas of long standing woodland also have significantly more organic mater in them and so it is not just the CO2 in the timber that is important. Have also planted a good number of oaks and have a few that have self seeded about the place but will not be growing yew due to it being potentially toxic to livestock that might try to graze on it. I have read that oak are slow growing but been surprised that they do grow a bit quicker than I expected. I read the sap wood that is found in the younger trees is not much use in oaks so it still is a very long term tree to plant if getting useful timber is the objective.
I'm curious how much carbon could be captured if farmers let every boundary hedge grow just a bit taller, even 0.5m . That's a LOT of extra foliage collectively
Posts
Sir David Attenborough, naturalist and broadcaster, Population Matters Patron (born 1926)
“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”
"I support Population Matters because I think if we keep on growing, we’re not only going to damage nature, but we’re likely to see more and more inequality and human suffering."
“One thing you can say is that in places where women are in charge of their bodies, where they have the vote, where they are allowed to dictate what they do and what they want, whether it’s proper medical facilities for birth control, the birth rate falls.”
“The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us.”
“As I see it, humanity needs to reduce its impact on the Earth urgently and there are three ways to achieve this: we can stop consuming so many resources, we can change our technology and* we can reduce the growth of our population.”
"Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we controlled the population to allow the survival of the environment."
*my italics
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
It's sort of intresting to note though that CO2 isn't the most harmful greenhouse gas - it's the most common as it results from burning fossil fuel, which is why it gets so much attention but methane is about 25 times potentially more harmful & Nitrous oxide 300 times potentially more harmful.
Rice paddies are said to be responsible for about 20% of man-made methane emmisions.
However, N2O emissions has - so I've read - increased by 35% over the last 20 years & the biggest culprit by far is agriculture - mainly by over-fertilization.
N2O is potentially the real baddy that doesn't get nearly enough attention, especially when you consider it can remain in the atmosphere for decades.
Having said all that, it's my view that climate science is barely out of nappies in terms of understanding and like all things connected to scientific theory & predictions you only need to be 'out' by a very small margin for that error to become catastrophic in 50-100 years time.
An intresting article..albeit a bit old.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-climate-change-is-good-for-the-world
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
The biggest issue is that as individuals we can try and do our part but it has to be every rung on the ladder that contributes and that simply isn't the case. For years we have talked about planting trees but there are loop holes even in this. Many farmers who got grants for planting new trees actually cleared forested areas to do so and then filled them with crop trees (palm oil), so what sounded like a very positive policy turned out to be an extremely detrimental one.
Longer lived trees are in general slower growing, so they take up less CO2 per year than faster growing trees. However I am talking averages the average beech tree is not a particularly long lived tree, Life time can be extended by pollarding and other growth restriction such as poor soil or a cold area, but again it's just a toss up between lifespan and CO2 capture. If we wanted to pick trees with a high lifespan then yew or oak but both are very slow growing.
I have seen alright that the giant redwood has not been growing very fast but think when it is a bigger tree in time even a slower growth rate would still put on a significant amount of weight each year. I think the important point that some people have made is that if the land area stays as woodland and there is continuous tree cover with younger trees taking over from older ones then there would be a continued volume of CO2 kept out of the atmosphere in the biomass of the woodland. Soils in areas of long standing woodland also have significantly more organic mater in them and so it is not just the CO2 in the timber that is important. Have also planted a good number of oaks and have a few that have self seeded about the place but will not be growing yew due to it being potentially toxic to livestock that might try to graze on it. I have read that oak are slow growing but been surprised that they do grow a bit quicker than I expected. I read the sap wood that is found in the younger trees is not much use in oaks so it still is a very long term tree to plant if getting useful timber is the objective.