Comment by vasco

Comment by vasco 4 days ago

53 replies

View on Hacker News

Not everywhere, between 2000 and 2020, 36 countries managed to get more tree cover than they lost, so we "just" need to expand this practice.

https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest...

> Even though the world gained 130.9 Mha of tree cover between 2000 and 2020, it still lost much more, with an overall net loss of 100.6 Mha. While the global numbers report a negative trajectory, there are distinct regional patterns or “hotspots” of net gain. At least 36 countries gained more tree cover than they lost over the 20-year time period. As a continent, Europe gained 6 million hectares of tree cover by 2020. Asia also had a large proportion of countries with net gain, particularly in Central and South Asia. The drivers of much of this gain (for example, what proportion is due to intentional restoration interventions versus land abandonment) are still difficult to determine using the available data, but are a key area for future research. Additionally, even though tree cover gain is occurring in many places, it doesn’t “cancel out” the impacts of loss. Primary forests in particular serve as critical carbon stores and support an intricate network of wildlife, none of which can easily be replaced once lost.

dr_dshiv 3 days ago

And it’s not just trees. Ever heard of “justdiggit”?

They found that digging holes in the desert functionally accumulates enough water to promote diverse plant life. It’s apparent an ancient practice. They organize groups to do it. Ecological stewardship is, I hope, a key shift in mindset from the current totalizing view of global warming.

https://justdiggit.org/

Reply View 9 replies
  • ackbar03 3 days ago

    We should get prisoners to just randomly dig holes in the sand, a shovels length in diameter

    Reply View 0 replies
  • vasco 3 days ago

    I didn't know about this but after several documentaries on the medium to long term impact of these projects many areas being more detrimental than beneficial I tend to be a bit skeptical. I get particularly skeptical when the whole website is geared towards taking in corporate donations rather than teaching how to do it and direct action and a sort of wiki of how to do it yourself as well as evangelizing that.

    I didn't spend too long on the website but this page https://justdiggit.org/dig-in/farmer/start-regreening/ seems to be the closest to that, yet it's still no instructions and just marketing. I don't want to sound too negative or make a judgment call with too little information but wanted to share my worries as it has become all too common for grifters to take advantage of the situation in a sort of partnership with huge corporation leadership teams. They get free money and the leadership team gets to greenwash whatever they do in their core business.

    I never researched this specific one in detail other than a few minutes now, but the company I worked for previously used to do this style of donations and we found a lot of projects like this.

    Reply View 7 replies
    • dr_dshiv 3 days ago

      So take a minute to look at their impact reports and then we can discuss the evidence.

      https://justdiggit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Justdiggit...

      Sorry I shared the main link— they are an NGO that raises money, that’s how it works.

      Reply View 5 replies
      • vasco 3 days ago

        I just find it hard to understand that if you really found out digging holes has this much impact, and you truly care, that you wouldn't share schematics and detailed guides on how to do it in your own land, does that make sense? They would of course still try to do larger projects, but it just feels strange enough to cause doubt for me. Sorry if it's a misjudgement.

        Reply View 4 replies
    • sydbarrett74 3 days ago

      Agreed. It's the corporate equivalent of sinning left and right 6 days a week, then going into the confession booth on Sunday and getting asked to recite a couple of Hail Mary's.

      Reply View 0 replies
internet_points 4 days ago

That first map makes it seem like we had gains pretty much all over the world, but it's not showing net gain, most of the countries of the world had a net tree cover loss. I wish it had a map showing net losses per country too – and it'd be interesting to see it going back in time, many countries had periods of very extensive logging during the 1800's and 1900's.

Reply View 16 replies
  • vasco 4 days ago

    If you scroll there is indeed a map with net gain in the page I shared. Direct link to the net gain map file here: https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/gfr/2022-10/36%...

    Reply View 4 replies
  • geodilg 4 days ago

    Forest loss data is available for the study period (2000 - 2020). I've worked with this specific data source quite a bit. While it's known for being the gold standard in global forest loss estimation there are many countries that criticize it for over estimating loss. Going back further than 1985 is difficult/impossible as the estimate is derived from satellite data.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • mitthrowaway2 4 days ago

      I wonder if declassified cold war spy plane photos might be usable to extend the records farther back in history? The resolution and coverage should be pretty good.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • Retric 3 days ago

        They didn’t take high resolution photos everywhere back then. In the early satellites it used physical film they recovered. And later digital storage and bandwidth was expensive and they dumped any data they didn’t need.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • mitthrowaway2 3 days ago

          I'm not thinking of early satellites, but rather spy planes like the U-2 and SR-71 (and their equivalents in other countries). They would take use big long reels of physical film, covering quite broad areas on continuous capture from high altitude. It's possible that much was discarded but my guess is that most of it was archived somewhere for the intelligence community. (I'm sure that some areas of the world got more attention than others, of course).

          Reply View 0 replies
  • onlyrealcuzzo 4 days ago

    > most of the countries of the world had a net tree cover loss.

    This also doesn't really matter.

    Russia, Canada, Brazil, the US, and China are about ~60% of the world's trees.

    Their forest areas could grow by only 2-3% and dozens of small countries could lose substantial percentages of their forests, and we'd still end up with a ton more trees and forest area.

    Reply View 4 replies
    • Teever 4 days ago

      What happens when the forests in those places burn down?

      Reply View 3 replies
      • bluGill 4 days ago

        Depends on how they burn and what forest we are talking about. A small intensity fire will leave many of the healthy trees alive while burning dead ones, and will turn some of the carbon into charcoal which is sequestered. A larger intensity fire will also kill healthy trees, and turns the carbon into CO2.

        Many of the forests in North America need to burn every year in that low intensity fire. Their seeds won't even sprout until after a fire (when all the dead undergrowth has been burned away thus leaving the new sprout with sunlight). However this doesn't apply to all forests in North America, and I know even less about other countries.

        Moral of the story: consult a forester who knows the local forest before talking about anything. In many places we have been badly mismanaging forests and there is no nice way out. We probably do need to burn down and start over with large parts of North America because of all the harm decades of "Smokey the bear" have done to our forests.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • ASalazarMX 4 days ago

        That depends on how many of them burn. A few? Doesn't matter much. All? Goodbye, and thanks for all the carbon.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • goatlover 3 days ago

        What percentage of burning down over what time scale?

        Reply View 0 replies
  • _joel 4 days ago

    Be interesting to go back even further, pre agriculture. The world would be awash with trees.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • bluGill 4 days ago

      Not really. In some places yes, but trees need specific conditions to exist: there would be lots of grass land and deserts too.

      Reply View 0 replies
SketchySeaBeast 4 days ago

I don't know that getting more trees than you lost is a useful or effective measure against climate change. It's a good thing, certainly, but I imagine the amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere requires more than a steady state of trees. I wonder how much of the world we'd need to cover with trees in order to offset our carbon production, certainly more than we've had during modern civilization.

Reply View 25 replies
  • internet_points 4 days ago

    https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-... says a new forest the size of New Mexico might offset the US's emissions. Or not. It depends. But first thing to do would be not to cut down the existing ones.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • SketchySeaBeast 4 days ago

      They say it would take a forest the size of New Mexico "to account for one year of American emissions" - given that trees both process CO2 during respiration and act as sinks when they grow, I can't tell if they'd be able to offset those emissions the next year as well or if we'd need a new forest.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • nfw2 2 days ago

        Trees produce CO2 during respiration and intake it during photosynthesis. The carbon captured during photosynthesis will be offset to some degree by the tree's own need to consume glucose.

        Reply View 0 replies
    • [removed] 3 days ago
      [deleted]
      Reply View 0 replies
  • baq 4 days ago

    Basically we need to grow trees as fast as possible, cut them down and bury them deep, exactly the opposite of what we’re doing when mining fossil fuels. No wonder there’s exactly zero people doing that.

    Reply View 9 replies
    • pfdietz 4 days ago

      There's been a proposal to bury them not-so-deep, but saturated with salt to prevent decomposition. It's not necessary to sequester the carbon forever, just on a time scale for natural absorption of the CO2 into oceans and then into carbonates (which is something like 100,000 years, IIRC).

      Reply View 3 replies
      • ieidkeheb 3 days ago

        So that someone in the future can discover these reserves and use it as fuel?!?!!?!

        Reply View 2 replies
    • Atiscant 3 days ago

      Biochar is exactly doing that and is an active area of research in many places. There is several ongoing projects also showing that biochar can improve soil quality and crop yields.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • thfuran 4 days ago

    We need to be building a mountain range out of diamonds.

    Reply View 6 replies
    • internet_points 3 days ago

      The nice thing about making diamonds as opposed to coal or bio-oil is that it's quite hard to burn the diamond, so less chance of someone getting tempted into using these enormous reserves that are just sitting there, depreciating, to fuel the helicopter of their bitcoin-mining luxury cruise ship or create an ultra-fast pizza delivery service using rocket launchers

      Reply View 0 replies
    • SketchySeaBeast 4 days ago

      Can you imagine the extraterrestrial archaeologist trying to explain that?

      Reply View 4 replies
      • bluGill 4 days ago

        No - stupid slow speed of light stops so many interesting science fiction imaginations.

        Reply View 3 replies
  • tomrod 4 days ago

    Depends on where the carbon goes. Into a home? Locked up for a long time. Under a cooking stove? Released.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • SketchySeaBeast 4 days ago

      But does it help worrying about where we're putting logs while we're burning fossil fuels? We need to plant enough trees to offset all the trees we're burning, but also all the gasoline, oil, and natural gas we're burning as well as all the concrete we're producing. The math seems like it'll never balance.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • argiopetech 4 days ago

        I did the back of the napkin math below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42697255

        Barring mistakes, it balances if we had avoided reducing the planet's vegetation by 20% since 1900. So much for that.

        That's obviously not "the" solution, but it seems like reducing fuel burn while increasing forestation would benefit us beyond what is commonly expected.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • SketchySeaBeast 4 days ago

          Interesting math, so it is mathematically possible. Important to note, 1 billion hectares is just over the size of all of the United States.

          Reply View 0 replies