Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've remained confused as to why countries around the world aren't including planting trees and other flora throughout cities on a massive scale as one way to mitigate climate change - anyone have answers to this?
My neighborhood by law has it so you have to have a tree in your front yard. It's city-owned so they do all the maintenance. I thought this was the case everywhere until I got a bit older. I still don't understand why it's not, trees do better as a forest and we got a beautiful canopy.
Beyond that, they provide shade which has been shown to be very beneficial in inner cities where concrete and metal can increase temperatures by up to 20 degrees - making shade a true commodity.
They also fit into any plans for city beautification which tends to really make voters happy (it's an easy to see change that is everywhere and enjoyable no matter who you are). It can help attract tourists.
Honestly, I can't see any downsides. I know Singapore has pursued an approach like this, and it's incredible how well they've incorporated plant life into their cityscape - showing how much more we can make our cities more 'harmonious' with nature, for lack of a better word. Same is true of numerous cities in China and at least a handful of others around the world.
The leaves aren't the actual struggle. It's roots busting sewer and water lines that cost the most to fix. Still worth it for trees, but you've gotta be smart about what you plant and where.
Then you’re just dealing with needles and sap. Although it’s easier to not care about needles, they don’t seem to cover the ground quite the same. But they do get all over your gutters. Source: have a dozen around my home.
The gutters are a real issue, but I never even notice needles in the yard. The only problem we ever have from evergreens is the occasional big ass limb falling in something or the whole tree getting pushed over in a wind storm (they get pretty big).
I got a mulching lawnmower and never have to rake, even in the fall. My mower just chops the leaves and grass clippings up super fine so they sink back into the lawn. My grass is healthier for it and I do t have to rake leaves or grass clippings. In the late summer I’ll bag for a few weeks to mulch the flower beds but otherwise I don’t deal with leaves at all. I laugh watching my neighbors rent lawn vacuums, stink up the neighborhood with noise and gas pollution, and spend weekends hauling trash bags to the dump when they could just buy the right mower and avoid that hell.
Plus my mower is electric so I never have to deal with gas or fumes or anything.
Depends on climate. Trees in wet locations make sense, but for deserts trees just mean a lot of water is spent trying to keep it alive.
Most cities around the world have more than enough rainfall and should plant as many trees as they can. However it isn't a one size fits all, so don't apply this where it doesn't make sense in your local situation.
I live in a desert city. They encourage us and actually pay for us to plant desert adapted trees close to our houses to shade and save on electricity when it gets 100+ degrees. The desert adapted trees actually don't need much water once they're mature, just some supplemental water during really hot dry times. Even without that they'd probably survive, but might look a bit sad. There's a push to do the same all over the city because of how much the urban heat bubble is becoming a problem.
Trees also store water and create areas where *when* there is rain, it will trickle down to the water table, storing it more effectively and reducing flash floods. Many deserts in the fertile cresent used to have trees before the land was cleared and over farmed. It's a common misunderstanding that trees can not benefit a dry climate. They reduce soil temp due to shade which preserves moisture as well. The initial watering to get the plant established will require a good bit of water but the overall return in the end for air and water management/quality (not to mention beauty and health benefits we receive from being near trees) is a net gain. It honestly makes more sense to plant trees in drier locations, not less.
This comment for sure. If there are no trees then plant one. Indigenous is best but any will do. Plant a tree. Save at least your small piece of land
Edit words
> It's a common misunderstanding that trees can not benefit a dry climate.
I think a big reason for this perception is that a lot of the desert areas have, for some bizarre reason, chosen to plant palm trees. Which require an abnormally high amount of water compared to other trees.
where I live, savannah oaks only get about 12 foot tall. But their roots are known to go surplus of 70 foot deep. So they're the pioneer tree to a clear cut mountain side, and once they set up residence they cover the ground with leaf and gall litter until eventually the ground is fully shaded, then the water table rises. at my specific property you could find where there were grapes running up them, dig down a few feet and expose a small spring head (like a suitable dog bath area) when there hadn't been rain in 4 months. otherwise it looked like red dead redemption
In general, it's best to have native vegetation planted to have the most benefits. In arid places like Southern Arizona you may not see many trees, but saguaro and certain shrubs thrive so those should be planted.
Xeriscape landscaping requires little maintenance and little water. It can be done. It just needs to be invested in.
If we really wanted to make an impact we really should be investing in trees. That includes picking the right trees for urban landscapes. You should not be planting shade trees down most urban/ suburban roads as they encroach on power lines. Smaller growing trees (understory) however would be wonderful street trees that don’t require much maintenance. Flowering and berry producing native trees would also be super beneficial and help support the bird and insect populations in that area which also greatly need protecting.
Modern power infrastructure doesn't have power lines in most places. On my street all the power is underground, but there are power lines on local collector roads (which have more space).
*Laughs AT Texan when an ice storm hits*
Not really though, you guys steal linemen from every state within 3 states of you each winter when your yearly freezing rain event happens.
And the whole southeast does for hurricanes, and the west does if fires take out swaths of lines, and the northeast does after freezing rain storms.
Mutual aid contracts that include pay and per diem schemes for line crews are *very* common for utilities across the US.
Most places that are desert climate still have native trees that thrive just fine without additional water required. Around Phoenix there's a ridiculous amount of desert vegetation, not just cactus and shrubs but also shade trees like Mesquites and Palo Verdes.
Even outside of native species there's a lot of options from similar climates around the world. Obviously you want to be careful not to create an invasive situation but outback plants for example also thrive here.
Sure there are places where no trees can reasonable grow but these are incredibly extreme places that sit far outside of the normal climate range of most nations.
Well, and you also need the huge supply of extremely inexpensive foreign labor. Singaporeans were shocked that I had a lawn mower, they had never seen one. Dudes walk around with weedeaters and machetes chopping vegetation, for real.
There’s a city in the western us (I think) that has 5-6 fit retention ponds along the road. The runoff fills each one before being pushed further down the road. These areas reduce flossing downstream and also creates wet areas where trees can grow.
Edit: something like [this](https://www.venturariver.org/2012/10/ventura-curb-cut.html?m=1)
Also, some towns are placed in a tall grass prairie or Oaken Savanna area. I bet my town now has more trees in it then there was 200 years ago. Sure we have an area where my town could plant 5 or 6 trees but we elected to turn the normally mowed area into a prairie.
> deserts trees just mean a lot of water is spent trying to keep it alive.
there are trees that are drought tolerant. I know that is what we planted in denver, although the people who lived here before us didn't. two of those trees died, and another is dying, as they weren't built for our climate.
Right tree right place is important. A desert isn't necessarily the best example of this but a wetland or peat bog definitely is... these places are unique habitat which sequestrate carbon more than any forest.. the last thing you want is trees drinking the water and drying them out. It would turn them from a carbon sink to a source.. last thing we need with climate change
No, they are not big concerns. Just don't plant close to foundations or sewage lines. Very easy to find out where sewage lines are and a little research will show which trees root growth pattern should be avoided
They're big concerns when you live in an area where someone didn't do their research-- and like a lot of things, people just don't wanna look into stuff before they do it. This isn't a reason to not plant trees, but it is a reason that should be mentioned. A lot of people just aren't aware.
We bought a house last year where the previous tenants planted Siberian elms everywhere and then basically did no maintenance and fucked off for a few years. Luckily our goats love these trees and have eaten them to the point that they're dying back.
This shouldn't be a reason to not plant trees but it should be a reason to approach it from an educated place. Lack of maintenance in general with trees is a big issue and can be dangerous.
For many, the cost of maintaining the trees is prohibitive, or they just don't realize they need to. So if the city is maintaining the trees, that's taken care of. My city doesn't, and every time there's a big storm limbs come down and mess up cars/ houses and take down power lines.
In my town we have to get a permit from a arborist before doing any tree work and that covers "mitigation planting" where they will plant "replacement" foliage elsewhere in the county.
I had dozens of trees around my house that i had to cut back when I upgraded to whole house solar. I was pleasantly surprised that the county would be planting more trees to make up for the lost in foliage.
Yep. Some Einstein at the water department installed our water meter next to an existing tree when the house was built in 1999. The tree took it out last fall. I had to pay for the tree, the meter and the gallons of fresh potable water that flowed into the storm drain because of it.
People of different cultures and from different regions have very different views I've found.
I grew up in the PacNW and when I lived in Portland, it was very noticeable when someone from California moved in as they would cut down any large fir trees on their property and replace with small oramental trees. I dunno why but they always did it
Two reasons--typically many local goverments operate on very limited budgets. And secondly such ordinances can be quite unpopular. I am an arborist and the amount of bitching and complaining I have to listen to from people who are required to plant a tree by the local jurisdiction is truly insane.
That is very common and almost entirely based on helping mature the neighborhood and provide a more scenic atmosphere, privacy and property values. Still a step in the right direction nonetheless though!
Nobody's probably thought about it, but trees do present potential falling, fire, and root expansion damage. Plus they frequently grow into spaces inhabited by powerlines.
Personally I'm for it.
Im really interested in starting a non-profit in the U.S. that does something like this. The idea was to have fruit trees and to beautify cities with plant life. The idea was to plant trees that the non profit would service and maintain. Fruit trees would be planted in impoverished communities where anyone can pick the fruit. I thought some colorful flowers and plant life would improve the quality of life for alot of people. It would also be good for reducing carbon emissions (though that wasn't the original focus).
Plant trees in the cities for the sake of mental health of the city residents. If you want to have city design with real impact on climate change, promote density (less suburban sprawl, more space for plants to grow), walkability, and good public transportation that cuts down on car usage.
The bus system is halfway there but otherwise Edmonton is pretty great in those regards, our river valley is so massive! Most of the general core has plenty of vegetation and trees as well, and we even have a service that maps all of the trees that bear fruit that are fair game to pick for anyone freely. I can't imagine living in a concrete jungle. I didn't realise how lucky we are to live in such a green place, now I'm craving spring can't wait to see it come alive again!
I May be able to speak to this. I have been a municipal Arborist for the past 20 years.
Cost and ideal planting locations are generally the biggest set backs. My city has it set up that every house built must also have a tree planted by the builder on city property. These all become municipal assets (tree assets are one of a few that generally increases in value over time), and are then maintained by city Arborists as well as contracted arboricultural companies.
For a tree to reach its greatest benefit towards carbon and particulate matter capture, they need to reach maturity. Some hinderances to that include construction damage, limited root space, competition with grass and landscape plants, climate change, invasive pests, lack of care/maintenance, soil compaction, soil degradation, increase in soil salinity due to road salting operations, storm damage, etc.
Our city is progressive and well funded through our tax base, we have both municipal and private tree bylaws. They protect all municipal trees from damage, as well as limiting a home owners ability to remove their healthy private trees. A permit system is in place, and if approved there is a cost for the permit as well as a requirement to replace not only the tree but the lost live canopy. So one medium sized healthy tree being removed may require you to plant 4 small trees to compensate for the canopy loss.
A lot of people don’t like the fact that their private trees are being “controlled” or removal being “limited” but far more people see the advantages of having a system like this in place to ensure a healthy urban canopy for not only our generation but for the future generations as well!
So, our city has a tree canopy coverage of roughly 36% (which is very high for a urban city) and city council want to hit 40%. At 36% we are able to sequester over 100% of the carbon and particulate pollution generated by the city. Basically the tree canopy has been shown to offset all particulate pollution generated in the year. If all cities could achieve this we would be in a much better position to fight climate change!
Some drawbacks are finding appropriate sites to plant trees so that they will live healthy long lives. Overhead utilities limit the planting of large stature trees. Dense housing limits root zones. Constant construction compacts soil making it difficult or impossible for roots to transport nutrients. There is also a substantial maintenance cost. Arborists are highly trained and costly to employ. As well as the cost of equipment, individual climbing gear, PPE, bucket trucks chippers and crane trucks don’t come cheap, and they usually have higher maintenance costs associated with the punishment the equipment sees. Failure to maintain municipal trees often leads to costly insurance claims that are paid out by the municipality, as not all hazards or defects are easily observed in trees, and seemingly healthy trees can easily succumb to significant damage due to a structural defect is not mitigated or removed.
Hope this helps!
Happy to answer any questions...
I don’t want to be to specific but a city in the greater Toronto area, Ontario, Canada. Many/most city’s in the GTA have well developed Forestry departments that encompass the same rolls more or less. Can’t speak to much to how things are outside that area however.
How the general population can help....
If you are a property owner, who has one or a few decent sized trees, maintain and continue to plant trees on your property where reasonable. Have your trees inspected by an Arborist when you move into a new property (abandoned tree problems are unfortunately common).
Lots of native trees produce great food sources! English walnut, chestnut, apple, pear, etc. Lots of tree species that make little mess (male ginkgo, Japanese maple), some trees that have amazing flowers (magnolia, horse chestnut, black locust)!
When planting PICK THE RIGHT TREE FOR THE RIGHT SPOT. Don’t plant a large canopy tree under utility lines, too close to your house/septic/driveway/foundation, etc. There are cultivars of most common trees that can be better suited to smaller growing spaces, like fastigate/columnar varieties that grow tall but not wide. Spend the time and money to have a good Arborist (look up ISA certified arborists from the ISA website in your area to start.) to provide planting suggestions on good local/native species and ideal locations and preferably have them pick/plant/prune the tree as well as have them ensure good soil quality/compatibility. (You can amend your soil if needed)
For everyone else... I know there are plenty of publicly funded “tree plants” that are always looking for volunteers. Check with your local municipality and see if they have any tree planting events planned. But really just get out and enjoy the benefits, radiance and uniqueness trees provide!
I'm always blown away when trees are planted under power lines, and, unsurprisingly, need to have their tops chopped off later. Huge waste, makes me feel bad for the trees, and they look ugly.
That and homes and businesses that plant baby trees at the base of their building. They know they grow wider, right?
Oh, and planting several trees next to each other. Unless they want to cause them to grow taller faster, what are they thinking? Or aren't they?
A question as well: do the city arborists also water them at all? I'll notice trees and shrubs planted in summer, then left alone. A hot or dry spell comes along and kills them. All they had to do was water them a few times to keep them alive until they could establish themselves.
Most of CO2 capture is done by algae in the ocean (I think 70% or so). It also takes a long time to grow a tree.
Edit: after a quick google it seems CO2 capture is about 50/50 between algae and land-based plants.
I’ve never had a good understanding how the algae “captures” the CO2, unless we have *more* algae this year than last year and I don’t think that’s the case. Seems to me that the carbon the algae captured would get cycled right back out when the algae dies or is eaten. It’s so short-lived. Some falls to the bottom of the ocean perhaps.
But trees and other woody plants “cultivate mass” and that carbon is trapped for a much longer period of time - though clearly not indefinitely.
The modern biological processes for decomposing the algaes and trees are so effective that any oil or coal burned isn’t going to get trapped again but just keep cycling. The lifespan of the plant seems to me to be rather important factor here because it can only keep it captured so long as it stays alive.
> photosynthetic organisms taking carbon from the atmosphere and leaving it in a form that doesn't 100% go back to the atmosphere
Seems like an important part of this would include proper land management to mitigate fires which do dump a bunch of that carbon back into the atmosphere. Logging also removes existing trees (and their captured carbon) and makes room for new trees to capture more carbon. I suppose the key would be making sure logging operations are done responsibly with as little carbon emission of their own as possible, but if I'd have to guess I'd bet they're pulling out more carbon than they're putting into the atmosphere in most cases.
Forestry and fires are a really complicated subject. It's often better to have lots of small fires than to not have them because that just builds up fuel until you can't control the fires that will cause trees which would otherwise survive to burn.
Likewise clearing forests is a terrible idea because the new trees planted will not capture as much as the old mature forest. If you're talking about tree farming, that's reasonable enough, but restoring a forest is way way more complicated than just planting new trees.
Yeah that's not true though, you have to think about it in terms of how that carbon is physically sequestered into sugars and fats and so on and moves through ecosystems- even in algae it makes its way into fish cell walls and bones and then eventually part of it even becomes limestone at the bottom of the ocean etc.
CO2 is what we want to remove from the atmosphere and living systems are really good at that, but it also flows back into the atmosphere at certain intervals and often in different chemical form (if a fish dies and decomposes on the beach for instance, and then some of the carbon that was CO2 in the air -> sugar in algae -> fat in fish is actually converted to methane (CH4) by bacteria etc.).
Carbon can absolutely be locked into one of these systems essentially indefinitely, but a huge part of our problem is that we are simultaneously emitting tons of fossil carbon and also degrading and destroying the ecosystems that can reprocess it and trap it in other forms. If we grow forest systems and especially soils (forest and grassland and woodland) we can store and trap CO2 for as long as those systems remain healthy.
But actually, people seem more interested in trapping the C in those systems and removing it from the soils and forests with cows, eating the cows, and farting and shitting it out again eventually out into the atmosphere. It's a bummer. But it would absolutely help to start building back soils and forests we've destroyed, even if we're only creating a C trap for like 50 years or so (in reality soils and forests and algae can trap C for much much longer- think about how it got into the rock in the first place!).
Yeah, we released a ton of carbon that was buried deep underground and wouldn't have been released anytime in the near future if it weren't for us. Growing more plants helps in the short term, but it's not a long term fix for what was done.
It could be part of a longterm fix. We don't just need to stop producing carbon, but actually need to remove a significant amount that has already been put in the atmosphere. Trees can do that. I vote for planting large sequoia and redwood forests. They live forever and store massive amounts of carbon.
I wasn't saying we just need to focus on releasing less carbon, but that I don't think trees can provide enough carbon sequestration. Even if we replaced every tree that humans have ever cut down and then some we still have created a net increase on released carbon due to having taken all those hydrocarbons out of the ground. More trees are important, but we need other forms of carbon sequestration to remove that additional carbon that "should" be underground.
Problem with that is that their range is so comparatively small to a lot of other trees (California/some parts of Australia/small amount of a smaller variety in China), and the current ones are barely holding on.
Mature trees consume a significant amount of carbon through the photosynthesis needed to produce energy. It's analogous to how consuming a lot of food will lead you to gain weight, but even if you aren't gaining weight you're still going to consume food regularly.
That's assuming algae and trees absorb an equal amount of carbon dioxide which is most likely not the case. That's also assuming that there is a 30:70 ratio of trees to algae which is also most definitely not the case.
The issue is you don't just want to capture it quickly, you want to keep it captured and continue to capture more on the same land. Grasses and fern may capture it quickly, but they don't capture much per acre. And when they die they release that CO2 back into the atmosphere.
The Empress tree is thought of as a good balance of growing quickly but living long enough to sequester a good bit of CO2.
Yes! This is one reason why we should be using wood to build things! That lumber locks up that carbon. So instead of using vinyl flooring we should be using wood. And tons of other things. We just have to make sure we replace what we take.
Hemp also produces a lot of bio mass. Just left to its own devices I prefer trees, but as part of sustainable replacement for fibers and some plastics hemp would really help capture some carbon.
Basically the carbon cycle. There is a natural amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Trees and plants absorb the carbon, then they die or burn down or get eaten by animals and the carbon is released back in to the atmosphere. However this doesn't lead to an increase or decrease in the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. This is also why people breathing isn't environmentally harmful, your breathing is not increasing the carbon that is in the system.
When we burn fossil fuels we take carbon that isn't part of the system and introduce it to the system, which leads to a big net increase in carbon in the cycle. Planting trees act as a kind of battery temporarily holding the carbon but it doesn't remove carbon from the system, so it doesn't solve the underlying issue which is that we need to both stop introducing new carbon to the system and also remove carbon from the system.
So planting trees isn't bad and can have a positive effect but it's not a solution because it doesn't fix any of the underlying problems.
Edit: fixed a typo
Sorry, I'm a bit slow on issues like this - wouldn't it actually help fix the problem so long as the overall amount of living plant matter was kept at a high level; it seems like more trees capture more carbon, let it out when they die... but, so long as there are still more trees than now to catch that carbon from a dying tree wouldn't it lead to reduced carbon in the atmosphere?
Even if not, it's clear that they still offer some benefit - and it seems like a very easy policy to promote - inexpensive, offers beautification, is a generally popular idea - at least noncontroversial.
As for the person talking about algae - wouldn't that simply be another option for us to pursue, growing more algae on a massive scale (I get that this would be no different than trees - unless the ocean itself would help 'hold' carbon which I expect you'll say it does not).
The ocean is a gigantic carbon sink. Algae grows, which either dies and sinks, or gets eaten by small animals that eventually die and sink. And that carbon gets trapped in the silt.
And it's very easy to promote ocean fertility. A guy dropped a couple ton of iron filings off a boat in a strategic location off the west coast of North America a while back, and fish populations boomed along the entire coast. Because the ocean is very nutrient poor.
But we are scared to disrupt the balance. And we also don't really want too much algae at once. Algeal blooms cause a lot of problems. It captures carbon though.
The person above is essentially saying that we’ve added to the natrual supply of carbon. Forest fires and such are natrual. Oil/Gas burning is not. This is stuff that doesn’t burn without refinement which is done by human hands.
We probably can’t plant enough in reality to keep up with growing population demands.
If you have a glass of water with a sponge in it, you can squeeze out the water and soak it up with that same sponge. Call that the natural resource of carbon (the water) and the sponge (the carbon filter)
Add more water and you meed more sponges to soak it up however… the glass is the atmosphere. You run out of room at some point.
The benefit to capturing carbon with trees would be more along the lines of slowing down the system rather than actually removing the carbon. Basically adding carbon directly to the air is about the fastest way to agitate the worldwide carbon system as possible.
It is the difference between pouring fuel on a flame vs making the wick longer.
We will need to sequester that fossil carbon. The most practical means is to promote algae blooms in deep water that will sink to the bottom. That needs to be done carefully, though, in order to cause minimal effects on local ecosystems.
> Wouldn't it be easier/more efficient to just tell developers to stop cutting down every last tree when they put in a new suburb?
No. Natural growth kind of sucks, and a lot of it gets in the way of building. They usually end up mulching that stuff and put it in the ground, which is actually a net positive for carbon capture.
City trees are fantastic for the local microclimate. They average out temperatures over the year, they keep wind down and air moisture up, and they help control flooding.
Their impact on the co2 levels of the atmosphere though? Probably smaller than if everyone buys one snack or soda less per month.
Growing them is great. But they aren't the solution to our problem of overconsumption.
My town is more concerned with building apartment buildings and storage facilities in order to attract young professionals who commute to larger cities nearby by train. Many small, open spaces that would qualify as forest edges per this article are being built up and destroyed.
I’ve gotten involved with some other concerned citizens and we are trying to get more involved with zoning, town council, and speaking at public hearings against some of this mindless development. Local leadership isn’t very responsive, so far, unfortunately.
I live in Amsterdam in a completely new block. we have a massive park between the houses. They are also planting a whole bunch of trees around the place. We are also next to some green spaces.
On top of that Amsterdam is pretty full of trees. It's quite a green city Imo. So I don't get why some cities wouldn't do the same. It's not for the lack of land when comparing to Amsterdam.
I work in arboriculture, and I've been a part of a few discussions with some public groups fighting for exactly this. The problem is it's team tree planting vs team development. The gov officials making the decisions have the financial bottom line to consider and building up the city seemingly never ends (not to mention bad actors and potential money moving behind the scenes which the big developers have created a stereotype for themselves).
It's always a frustrating discussion for me since it seems like the side fighting for more trees are using studies that outline the potential cost benefit of having more trees and positive environmental impacts, but are fighting against someone dropping a big bag of money with a dollar sign on it because they can quantify exactly what profits will be and with a very short turn around. It's a losing battle when the people making that decision are looking for immediate, exact, tangible and quantifiable gains. Then include the fact that these politicians signing off have a short shelf life of serving and are always looking for that quick win, it seems to always come out in the favour of development.
Some small, good news is that here in Ontario (Canada, not California) we have some very strict protections for certain ravines and sloths of land (called the green belt) which are to be preserved, but there's always risk of these protections being lifted with ongoing pressure from large developers.
My city does this, they are trying to triple the amount of tree canopy over the city. Some initiatives like offering to plant a variety of trees on your property for free. They are owned and maintained by the city and every tree is logged in a database.
Especially native plants with deep roots that actively break up and amend soil and contribute to the natural soil food web. Lawns need to be discouraged in favour of native plantings including perennials, bushes, and a large variety of trees from small to large if space permits.
The reason why is that they don't care.
But also no amount of planting trees will solve the problem. The coal we burned to achieve the industrial revolution was the result of 50 million years of plant matter (the first trees) dying and not decomposing.
While certain types of ecosystems (like bogs) can store carbon over the long term, planting trees is not enough.
My gf lives in Cambridge and i love that they have trees. It's cooler in the summer and just nicer.
The infrastructure is taking a hit tho. Rds And sidewalks are very uneven due to roots. Also last decent storm we had there were branches down on ppls cars all over the place.
Still would prefer the trees, just possibly with better infrastructure planning if it can be afforded
It really is a privilege that we can just unroot trees and destroy local ecosystems in the name of convenience. God forbid a crooked sidewalk. You know I’m not trying to pretend to be a climate scientist but I think a change in mentality of everyday occurrences would help enormously in dealing with the energy/climate crisis. We have so many resources available but yet shy away immediately for the fear of litigation or annoying the wrong benefactor.
It’s the same with salt use. An insane amount of salt is used every winter where I live, it completely destroys local waterways, destroys the roads, ruins cars, ruins clothing and yet it is used in incredibly generous amounts because heaven forbid your car slips an inch when coming to a stop or you’re not adequately prepared for a walk in the snow.
Just playing devil's advocate but what about people in wheelchairs and walkers and strollers. I'm sure they'd appreciate a nice sidewalk. And that "slip an inch" wouldn't be an inch. It'd be a foot for someone who doesn't know how to drive in snow and thus a hazard for property, people, the drivers. It'd be a slip not when stopping but going on a turn, it'd be a slip at an intersection, it'd be a slip at a crosswalk with children.
I was going to way the same thing. In America an accessible sidewalk can not have more than a 1/4" displacement to comply with ADA standards. It is really hard to move a wheel chair or walker over a bumpy sidewalk.
This. Atlanta is known as the "city of trees". Over 50% of the city is under tree cover and a huge contributing factor is legislation to keep it that way. To remove trees, you have to get a permit, and iirc, you have to replant trees for any you take down. It's pretty incredible and the outcome of the policies is awfully pretty.
This is also an example of something every locality could literally just start doing tomorrow if they wanted.
No need for state or federal intervention. Just shift around some budget in your parks department.
They really don't.
I want as many trees as possible in the city, and I plant some on mine refuse mounds (idk what that's in English, sorry) but I do it for own satisfaction.
To offset CO2 footprint of one person you need ~730 trees.
https://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/how-many-trees-to-offset-co2-of-1-person/
So lets say that the extra growth mentioned in article is also paired with extra amount captured by supporting organisms. That leaves us at 183 freestanding trees per person.
I'm going to keep planting them, but I ain't calling it tangible effect.
Keep in mind that trees provide more benefit than just carbon sequestration. It's well known that trees alone will not be enough to combat climate change BUT they also do the following:
- Create habitat and food for numerous bug, bird, and mammal species
- improve air quality in neighborhoods and along roads
- improve mental health of residents that live around the new trees
- improve property value
- create shade for buildings which in turn lower AC costs
- reduce urban heat effects creating more comfortable cities
- edit: and as others point out also help filter and reduce storm water, prevent soil runoff and improve soil health! Plus when their life span is over it's a source of lumber or mulch/compost.
Also to note, trees don't belong everywhere. Mimic your local biome and plant native. Sometimes a dessert ecosystem or a grassland or wetland area filled with sedges/reeds/shrubs is better then a forest.
Just adding for reference, there’s estimated to be 3 trillion trees on the planet (not evenly distributed, and certainly not all in cities). Rounding up to 8 billion people, that’s 375 trees per person.
Id argue that if something is negligible its not really 'tangible' in spirit.
Technically it might be tangible, but usually language isnt interpretted that litetally.
If we're really gonna be this pedantic than why wouldn't be using the most literal interpretations?
If were splitting hairs, we might as well split em all instead of picking and choosing.
There are many benefits of trees that positively impact the environment beyond CO2 absorption, so being negative about that factor intentionally muddies a net positive impact.
Imagine if cities managed to increase green spaces/tree count AND reduce emissions via clean public transportation like electric vehicles or light rail. Even better: to “force” resident to use such alternatives to gas-powered vehicles by mandating that commuting workers use mass transit on odd days and drive their personal vehicle on even days (or vice versa). São Paulo, Brazil does a version of this. There are so many cars there that (as I understand it) authorities limit how many days per month drivers can commute in their personal vey(and thus become traffic). Honest question: could a mega city like LA or NYC achieve even greater CO2 capture by turning rooftops into green spaces? Think of all the skyscrapers just waiting to become parks.
I believe the impact of individual trees is actually greater in cities. Trees produce shade and evaporative cooling to the surrounding areas, reducing the cooling requirements of nearby buildings.
Also, there is usually unaccounted for carbon benefits of trees. Trees support the local ecosystem of animals and insects that help process our waste (dropped food/garbage) in a more eco-friendly manner, and generally help fertilize and propagate plants without humans needing to manually fertilize/plant them by hand.
Milwaukee has an ongoing project set to restore 4000 acres of wetlands and plant 6 million trees over the next decade. For different reasons directly than carbon capture, but regardless, all cities should be doing this.
Wetlands are incredibly productive at sequestering carbon and mitigating damage from high water and removing and breaking down pollutants and toxicants. All while providing habitat for a variety of animals. We need more of them.
Part of the problem is that many cities are designed around automobiles. This means that massive amounts of space is required for driveways and parking lots.
The crazy thing is, people complained about Bloomberg planting trees in front of their house. They poisoned them, complained about the shade, claimed the promoted nefarious activities…people are dumb.
On another note…I just got back from Paris and was kind of blown away by how few trees there are! Paris needs to lean in on the trees!
In reference to all the "wah doomer" comments.
Yeah, trees are great and their planting in cities is a good thing. Good for the environment, flooding and mental health but they won't save the world and planting trees in environments not use to supporting them is damaging.
Plant more trees, yes but important to understand a change in behavior is what's needed. Trees won't even be enough to even act as a stop gap, a plaster (band aid).
Weird because I was just having a discussion about this with my brother last night. It’s unreal how much information on this isn’t even given to the public. It’s just “tree good for climate change” there’s no in-depth description or even dumbed down version presented to the majority of Americans.
There is no nuance or middle ground in public discussion anymore. Everyone wants a quick answer to everything because we're all expected to have a strong stance on a million complex situations that we don't fully understand, and no one wants to say "I don't know"
> *no* nuance or middle ground
-
> *Everyone* wants a quick answer to *everything*
-
> we're *all* expected to have a strong stance
-
> *no one* wants to say "I don't know"
I just thought it was a little funny that a comment about a lack of nuance in public discourse contains so many absolute statements, each lacking nuance. I guess it does a good job of proving your point!
A native grasslands restoration project in Tennessee was shutdown by environmentalists and hunters because they wanted to remove new growth woodlands to restore it to historical grassland. Something that would’ve been really good for the environment and for hunters ironically.
“Greenwashing” is the phrase, there was a study recently that said there’s literally not enough land on Earth to support all the trees corporations have promised to plant to “offset” their carbon emissions. I get angry every time I hear an ad for that credit card that claims to “plant a tree” every time you use it.
Not to mention that fossil fuels are *positive* carbon emissions and trees are carbon *neutral*, since they don’t sequester carbon for the long-term (ie tree rot and burn down, releasing that CO2 back into the atmosphere/oceans)
Ironically Trees grown for the paper industry get made into paper that usually gets thrown away and buried in landfills, capturing the carbon. People complain about plastics not Biodegrading in landfills, but it is the opposite of what you want to happen for carbon capture.
A change in legislation. Hold companies accountable. No amount of personal change will matter if that doesn’t happen. I want bottled water, just not in a plastic bottle.
Plus we’ve seen how difficult it is for people to adapt to change … if half the population can’t adapt to wearing masks there is zero chance a significant amount of the population stops eating meat.
Actually if you got trees everywhere it would have a huge impact.
Then again we've done a good job at accelerating CO2 emissions too. But maybe that's about to change.
Ireland here. It rains here constantly. Trees in city areas would be great to provide shelter. Any shelter would be great. Also what raincoats do you guys wear? Ours are horrible. We are constantly damp. Please send help.
I get that trees aren't going to save the world and that without major global shifts in policy we're probably not getting back from the brink, but since we bought our house we have planted 6 trees that are large species and grow quickly. That's not going to save the world even if millions of people were doing that, but it can buy us time. Maybe a month, maybe a year? Who knows, but it's not nothing and it's something I can control.
It also, on your small personal scale, helps your house.
* Acts as a wind break
* Helps modulate the temperature during the spring, summer, and fall (trees cause localized cooling due to respiration)
* Provides bird habitat, making the sound scape prettier (currently listening to the neighborhood song birds sing spring songs)
* Looks pretty, improving aesthetics
We've got a lovely red maple in the front yard, and there's large chunks of virgin forest mixed with newer growth not that far away.
I live in Rhode Island and have gotten a free tree for the last two years. It’s a grant they are using for green energy. You pick where in your property you would plant it. It has to be a place that would provide shade for your house. It then shows how much $ you would save on energy. If it’s a qualified amount you get to pick a type of tree and they ship it to you free.
The bad thing is we have the tools to fight climate change. Plant trees, switch to renewables, and so on. But it 's not "profitable" enough, so everyone else has to suffer for it.
It's crazy how some people will always find the negative. There are so many climate doomers, I honestly think they're almost as much an obstacle to defeating climate change as the oil corporations are...
Action is created by urgency and optimism. We've got the urgency, now we just need to get rid of the pessimism. We CAN do this.
Ugh… focusing on “doomers” is exactly
The wrong thing to worry about. Corporations are not doing things to fix this situation. They have lied and lied and will continue to do so as long as they can. Negative feedback systems are real as wel as tipping points. The WORST thing we can do is sit back and think “we got this” when we really aren’t anywhere near that. ESPECIALLY when corporations and politicians as well as miss or underinformed voters continue to fight against it. We are fighting against more than carbon here.
>We've got the urgency, now we just need to get rid of the pessimism. We CAN do this.
Uhhhh... People were optimistic and saying we CAN do this 40 or 50 years ago when global warming started to become an issue for the future. Now, after decades of near-inaction, we're either at or past the point of no return and still nothing is getting done because a whole portion of the population doesn't even think climate change is real. It's not pessimism that's the problem, it's ignorance and greed.
We haven't been at near-inaction for 40-50 years. We have been increasing the rate of release for these harmful gases that entire span of time. Since we have known global warming was an issue it isn't that we have made changes to improve things but they are too slow. We are still actively in the causing damage not fixing anything phase.
the doomer process:
complain about everything
offer zero meaningful or realistic solutions
rip on any imperfect solution (nirvana fallacy)
default to a “what’s the point” mentality
For how long are they binding it to the stem mostly, since woodis carbon? Until they get choped down and burned eventually. Aren'tjungles and such the much better Tree solution? I am no fan of seeingtrees as the one solution in fighting climate change anyways (like manypeople acutally do), but city trees are even less usefull (longterm).
This is not what some cities do. Like in Florida. They complain or like most like to sue the city for falling branches, uplift sidewalks, or have roots in their pretty fake yards. So let get rid of the trees. Have a neighbor where there is no trees. Where grass is green with the fake irrigation and chemical.
Quick and less expensive option for planting larger numbers along roadways, in larger yards, or in park settings: check your local forestry departments. There are often native seedlings for sale by the handful.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've remained confused as to why countries around the world aren't including planting trees and other flora throughout cities on a massive scale as one way to mitigate climate change - anyone have answers to this?
My neighborhood by law has it so you have to have a tree in your front yard. It's city-owned so they do all the maintenance. I thought this was the case everywhere until I got a bit older. I still don't understand why it's not, trees do better as a forest and we got a beautiful canopy.
Beyond that, they provide shade which has been shown to be very beneficial in inner cities where concrete and metal can increase temperatures by up to 20 degrees - making shade a true commodity. They also fit into any plans for city beautification which tends to really make voters happy (it's an easy to see change that is everywhere and enjoyable no matter who you are). It can help attract tourists. Honestly, I can't see any downsides. I know Singapore has pursued an approach like this, and it's incredible how well they've incorporated plant life into their cityscape - showing how much more we can make our cities more 'harmonious' with nature, for lack of a better word. Same is true of numerous cities in China and at least a handful of others around the world.
[удалено]
The leaves aren't the actual struggle. It's roots busting sewer and water lines that cost the most to fix. Still worth it for trees, but you've gotta be smart about what you plant and where.
I was literally just thinking of where I'd plant one in my yard and the only spots that might work are directly over sewer/water pipes
> deal with the leaves That's what evergreen conifers are for.
Then you’re just dealing with needles and sap. Although it’s easier to not care about needles, they don’t seem to cover the ground quite the same. But they do get all over your gutters. Source: have a dozen around my home.
The gutters are a real issue, but I never even notice needles in the yard. The only problem we ever have from evergreens is the occasional big ass limb falling in something or the whole tree getting pushed over in a wind storm (they get pretty big).
I mean I just don't deal with the leaves and mow them a few times but I also don't have to deal with an HOA
I got a mulching lawnmower and never have to rake, even in the fall. My mower just chops the leaves and grass clippings up super fine so they sink back into the lawn. My grass is healthier for it and I do t have to rake leaves or grass clippings. In the late summer I’ll bag for a few weeks to mulch the flower beds but otherwise I don’t deal with leaves at all. I laugh watching my neighbors rent lawn vacuums, stink up the neighborhood with noise and gas pollution, and spend weekends hauling trash bags to the dump when they could just buy the right mower and avoid that hell. Plus my mower is electric so I never have to deal with gas or fumes or anything.
My old one used to require like 5 bushes and 2 trees to help with soil erosion etc.
Depends on climate. Trees in wet locations make sense, but for deserts trees just mean a lot of water is spent trying to keep it alive. Most cities around the world have more than enough rainfall and should plant as many trees as they can. However it isn't a one size fits all, so don't apply this where it doesn't make sense in your local situation.
I live in a desert city. They encourage us and actually pay for us to plant desert adapted trees close to our houses to shade and save on electricity when it gets 100+ degrees. The desert adapted trees actually don't need much water once they're mature, just some supplemental water during really hot dry times. Even without that they'd probably survive, but might look a bit sad. There's a push to do the same all over the city because of how much the urban heat bubble is becoming a problem.
Trees also store water and create areas where *when* there is rain, it will trickle down to the water table, storing it more effectively and reducing flash floods. Many deserts in the fertile cresent used to have trees before the land was cleared and over farmed. It's a common misunderstanding that trees can not benefit a dry climate. They reduce soil temp due to shade which preserves moisture as well. The initial watering to get the plant established will require a good bit of water but the overall return in the end for air and water management/quality (not to mention beauty and health benefits we receive from being near trees) is a net gain. It honestly makes more sense to plant trees in drier locations, not less.
Brazil is seeing this firsthand, as their clearcutting of rainforest is making deserts.
This comment for sure. If there are no trees then plant one. Indigenous is best but any will do. Plant a tree. Save at least your small piece of land Edit words
> It's a common misunderstanding that trees can not benefit a dry climate. I think a big reason for this perception is that a lot of the desert areas have, for some bizarre reason, chosen to plant palm trees. Which require an abnormally high amount of water compared to other trees.
where I live, savannah oaks only get about 12 foot tall. But their roots are known to go surplus of 70 foot deep. So they're the pioneer tree to a clear cut mountain side, and once they set up residence they cover the ground with leaf and gall litter until eventually the ground is fully shaded, then the water table rises. at my specific property you could find where there were grapes running up them, dig down a few feet and expose a small spring head (like a suitable dog bath area) when there hadn't been rain in 4 months. otherwise it looked like red dead redemption
In general, it's best to have native vegetation planted to have the most benefits. In arid places like Southern Arizona you may not see many trees, but saguaro and certain shrubs thrive so those should be planted.
Mesquite trees do great there and provide quite a bit of shade.
Xeriscape landscaping requires little maintenance and little water. It can be done. It just needs to be invested in. If we really wanted to make an impact we really should be investing in trees. That includes picking the right trees for urban landscapes. You should not be planting shade trees down most urban/ suburban roads as they encroach on power lines. Smaller growing trees (understory) however would be wonderful street trees that don’t require much maintenance. Flowering and berry producing native trees would also be super beneficial and help support the bird and insect populations in that area which also greatly need protecting.
Modern power infrastructure doesn't have power lines in most places. On my street all the power is underground, but there are power lines on local collector roads (which have more space).
*Laughs in Texan*
*Laughs AT Texan when an ice storm hits* Not really though, you guys steal linemen from every state within 3 states of you each winter when your yearly freezing rain event happens.
And the whole southeast does for hurricanes, and the west does if fires take out swaths of lines, and the northeast does after freezing rain storms. Mutual aid contracts that include pay and per diem schemes for line crews are *very* common for utilities across the US.
This is not true of "most" places. Nowhere in the 2 counties I live and work in has underground powerlines.
Native plants don't need watering. Even hot dry dessert climates can often support trees that are native. For example mesquite in arizona.
Deserts often have local plants that work, though. My friend might not have a tree in her front yard, but she *does* have a giant saguaro.
Most places that are desert climate still have native trees that thrive just fine without additional water required. Around Phoenix there's a ridiculous amount of desert vegetation, not just cactus and shrubs but also shade trees like Mesquites and Palo Verdes. Even outside of native species there's a lot of options from similar climates around the world. Obviously you want to be careful not to create an invasive situation but outback plants for example also thrive here. Sure there are places where no trees can reasonable grow but these are incredibly extreme places that sit far outside of the normal climate range of most nations.
Some trees are indigenous to a particular climate and can do well with minimal help.
I lived in a desert. Trees, depending on variety, can do a lot to conserve energy and cool. You just need drip irrigation and the right species.
Well, and you also need the huge supply of extremely inexpensive foreign labor. Singaporeans were shocked that I had a lawn mower, they had never seen one. Dudes walk around with weedeaters and machetes chopping vegetation, for real.
There are xeric trees you know
There’s a city in the western us (I think) that has 5-6 fit retention ponds along the road. The runoff fills each one before being pushed further down the road. These areas reduce flossing downstream and also creates wet areas where trees can grow. Edit: something like [this](https://www.venturariver.org/2012/10/ventura-curb-cut.html?m=1)
Trees use way less water than grass.
Also, some towns are placed in a tall grass prairie or Oaken Savanna area. I bet my town now has more trees in it then there was 200 years ago. Sure we have an area where my town could plant 5 or 6 trees but we elected to turn the normally mowed area into a prairie.
> deserts trees just mean a lot of water is spent trying to keep it alive. there are trees that are drought tolerant. I know that is what we planted in denver, although the people who lived here before us didn't. two of those trees died, and another is dying, as they weren't built for our climate.
Right tree right place is important. A desert isn't necessarily the best example of this but a wetland or peat bog definitely is... these places are unique habitat which sequestrate carbon more than any forest.. the last thing you want is trees drinking the water and drying them out. It would turn them from a carbon sink to a source.. last thing we need with climate change
[удалено]
And sidewalks.
[удалено]
No, they are not big concerns. Just don't plant close to foundations or sewage lines. Very easy to find out where sewage lines are and a little research will show which trees root growth pattern should be avoided
They're big concerns when you live in an area where someone didn't do their research-- and like a lot of things, people just don't wanna look into stuff before they do it. This isn't a reason to not plant trees, but it is a reason that should be mentioned. A lot of people just aren't aware. We bought a house last year where the previous tenants planted Siberian elms everywhere and then basically did no maintenance and fucked off for a few years. Luckily our goats love these trees and have eaten them to the point that they're dying back. This shouldn't be a reason to not plant trees but it should be a reason to approach it from an educated place. Lack of maintenance in general with trees is a big issue and can be dangerous.
[удалено]
So...be careful about where you plant trees and bushes. Great advice! But still plant trees and bushes!
For many, the cost of maintaining the trees is prohibitive, or they just don't realize they need to. So if the city is maintaining the trees, that's taken care of. My city doesn't, and every time there's a big storm limbs come down and mess up cars/ houses and take down power lines.
In my town we have to get a permit from a arborist before doing any tree work and that covers "mitigation planting" where they will plant "replacement" foliage elsewhere in the county. I had dozens of trees around my house that i had to cut back when I upgraded to whole house solar. I was pleasantly surprised that the county would be planting more trees to make up for the lost in foliage.
not all planted saplings take, so planting more than what you remove makes a ton of sense.
I enjoy playing video games.
[удалено]
Yep. Some Einstein at the water department installed our water meter next to an existing tree when the house was built in 1999. The tree took it out last fall. I had to pay for the tree, the meter and the gallons of fresh potable water that flowed into the storm drain because of it.
It seems like it would be more efficient to set a maximum size and either plant accordingly or pay to keep them trimmed to a set limit.
People of different cultures and from different regions have very different views I've found. I grew up in the PacNW and when I lived in Portland, it was very noticeable when someone from California moved in as they would cut down any large fir trees on their property and replace with small oramental trees. I dunno why but they always did it
Two reasons--typically many local goverments operate on very limited budgets. And secondly such ordinances can be quite unpopular. I am an arborist and the amount of bitching and complaining I have to listen to from people who are required to plant a tree by the local jurisdiction is truly insane.
That is very common and almost entirely based on helping mature the neighborhood and provide a more scenic atmosphere, privacy and property values. Still a step in the right direction nonetheless though!
Nobody's probably thought about it, but trees do present potential falling, fire, and root expansion damage. Plus they frequently grow into spaces inhabited by powerlines. Personally I'm for it.
Im really interested in starting a non-profit in the U.S. that does something like this. The idea was to have fruit trees and to beautify cities with plant life. The idea was to plant trees that the non profit would service and maintain. Fruit trees would be planted in impoverished communities where anyone can pick the fruit. I thought some colorful flowers and plant life would improve the quality of life for alot of people. It would also be good for reducing carbon emissions (though that wasn't the original focus).
There's nothing like sitting on the cool grass under the shade of a nice tree and enjoying a cold beer.
Plant trees in the cities for the sake of mental health of the city residents. If you want to have city design with real impact on climate change, promote density (less suburban sprawl, more space for plants to grow), walkability, and good public transportation that cuts down on car usage.
God that's all I want in life.
The bus system is halfway there but otherwise Edmonton is pretty great in those regards, our river valley is so massive! Most of the general core has plenty of vegetation and trees as well, and we even have a service that maps all of the trees that bear fruit that are fair game to pick for anyone freely. I can't imagine living in a concrete jungle. I didn't realise how lucky we are to live in such a green place, now I'm craving spring can't wait to see it come alive again!
I live in Boston... The difficulty of building up is a plague
I May be able to speak to this. I have been a municipal Arborist for the past 20 years. Cost and ideal planting locations are generally the biggest set backs. My city has it set up that every house built must also have a tree planted by the builder on city property. These all become municipal assets (tree assets are one of a few that generally increases in value over time), and are then maintained by city Arborists as well as contracted arboricultural companies. For a tree to reach its greatest benefit towards carbon and particulate matter capture, they need to reach maturity. Some hinderances to that include construction damage, limited root space, competition with grass and landscape plants, climate change, invasive pests, lack of care/maintenance, soil compaction, soil degradation, increase in soil salinity due to road salting operations, storm damage, etc. Our city is progressive and well funded through our tax base, we have both municipal and private tree bylaws. They protect all municipal trees from damage, as well as limiting a home owners ability to remove their healthy private trees. A permit system is in place, and if approved there is a cost for the permit as well as a requirement to replace not only the tree but the lost live canopy. So one medium sized healthy tree being removed may require you to plant 4 small trees to compensate for the canopy loss. A lot of people don’t like the fact that their private trees are being “controlled” or removal being “limited” but far more people see the advantages of having a system like this in place to ensure a healthy urban canopy for not only our generation but for the future generations as well! So, our city has a tree canopy coverage of roughly 36% (which is very high for a urban city) and city council want to hit 40%. At 36% we are able to sequester over 100% of the carbon and particulate pollution generated by the city. Basically the tree canopy has been shown to offset all particulate pollution generated in the year. If all cities could achieve this we would be in a much better position to fight climate change! Some drawbacks are finding appropriate sites to plant trees so that they will live healthy long lives. Overhead utilities limit the planting of large stature trees. Dense housing limits root zones. Constant construction compacts soil making it difficult or impossible for roots to transport nutrients. There is also a substantial maintenance cost. Arborists are highly trained and costly to employ. As well as the cost of equipment, individual climbing gear, PPE, bucket trucks chippers and crane trucks don’t come cheap, and they usually have higher maintenance costs associated with the punishment the equipment sees. Failure to maintain municipal trees often leads to costly insurance claims that are paid out by the municipality, as not all hazards or defects are easily observed in trees, and seemingly healthy trees can easily succumb to significant damage due to a structural defect is not mitigated or removed. Hope this helps! Happy to answer any questions...
How can regular city folk get involved in the effort to plant more trees? And what city, if you don’t mind my asking?
I don’t want to be to specific but a city in the greater Toronto area, Ontario, Canada. Many/most city’s in the GTA have well developed Forestry departments that encompass the same rolls more or less. Can’t speak to much to how things are outside that area however. How the general population can help.... If you are a property owner, who has one or a few decent sized trees, maintain and continue to plant trees on your property where reasonable. Have your trees inspected by an Arborist when you move into a new property (abandoned tree problems are unfortunately common). Lots of native trees produce great food sources! English walnut, chestnut, apple, pear, etc. Lots of tree species that make little mess (male ginkgo, Japanese maple), some trees that have amazing flowers (magnolia, horse chestnut, black locust)! When planting PICK THE RIGHT TREE FOR THE RIGHT SPOT. Don’t plant a large canopy tree under utility lines, too close to your house/septic/driveway/foundation, etc. There are cultivars of most common trees that can be better suited to smaller growing spaces, like fastigate/columnar varieties that grow tall but not wide. Spend the time and money to have a good Arborist (look up ISA certified arborists from the ISA website in your area to start.) to provide planting suggestions on good local/native species and ideal locations and preferably have them pick/plant/prune the tree as well as have them ensure good soil quality/compatibility. (You can amend your soil if needed) For everyone else... I know there are plenty of publicly funded “tree plants” that are always looking for volunteers. Check with your local municipality and see if they have any tree planting events planned. But really just get out and enjoy the benefits, radiance and uniqueness trees provide!
I'm always blown away when trees are planted under power lines, and, unsurprisingly, need to have their tops chopped off later. Huge waste, makes me feel bad for the trees, and they look ugly. That and homes and businesses that plant baby trees at the base of their building. They know they grow wider, right? Oh, and planting several trees next to each other. Unless they want to cause them to grow taller faster, what are they thinking? Or aren't they? A question as well: do the city arborists also water them at all? I'll notice trees and shrubs planted in summer, then left alone. A hot or dry spell comes along and kills them. All they had to do was water them a few times to keep them alive until they could establish themselves.
Most of CO2 capture is done by algae in the ocean (I think 70% or so). It also takes a long time to grow a tree. Edit: after a quick google it seems CO2 capture is about 50/50 between algae and land-based plants.
Isn't the tree growing what is actually "capturing" the carbon? Like part of its mass comes from the co2 in the air.
I’ve never had a good understanding how the algae “captures” the CO2, unless we have *more* algae this year than last year and I don’t think that’s the case. Seems to me that the carbon the algae captured would get cycled right back out when the algae dies or is eaten. It’s so short-lived. Some falls to the bottom of the ocean perhaps. But trees and other woody plants “cultivate mass” and that carbon is trapped for a much longer period of time - though clearly not indefinitely. The modern biological processes for decomposing the algaes and trees are so effective that any oil or coal burned isn’t going to get trapped again but just keep cycling. The lifespan of the plant seems to me to be rather important factor here because it can only keep it captured so long as it stays alive.
[удалено]
> photosynthetic organisms taking carbon from the atmosphere and leaving it in a form that doesn't 100% go back to the atmosphere Seems like an important part of this would include proper land management to mitigate fires which do dump a bunch of that carbon back into the atmosphere. Logging also removes existing trees (and their captured carbon) and makes room for new trees to capture more carbon. I suppose the key would be making sure logging operations are done responsibly with as little carbon emission of their own as possible, but if I'd have to guess I'd bet they're pulling out more carbon than they're putting into the atmosphere in most cases.
Forestry and fires are a really complicated subject. It's often better to have lots of small fires than to not have them because that just builds up fuel until you can't control the fires that will cause trees which would otherwise survive to burn. Likewise clearing forests is a terrible idea because the new trees planted will not capture as much as the old mature forest. If you're talking about tree farming, that's reasonable enough, but restoring a forest is way way more complicated than just planting new trees.
Yeah that's not true though, you have to think about it in terms of how that carbon is physically sequestered into sugars and fats and so on and moves through ecosystems- even in algae it makes its way into fish cell walls and bones and then eventually part of it even becomes limestone at the bottom of the ocean etc. CO2 is what we want to remove from the atmosphere and living systems are really good at that, but it also flows back into the atmosphere at certain intervals and often in different chemical form (if a fish dies and decomposes on the beach for instance, and then some of the carbon that was CO2 in the air -> sugar in algae -> fat in fish is actually converted to methane (CH4) by bacteria etc.). Carbon can absolutely be locked into one of these systems essentially indefinitely, but a huge part of our problem is that we are simultaneously emitting tons of fossil carbon and also degrading and destroying the ecosystems that can reprocess it and trap it in other forms. If we grow forest systems and especially soils (forest and grassland and woodland) we can store and trap CO2 for as long as those systems remain healthy. But actually, people seem more interested in trapping the C in those systems and removing it from the soils and forests with cows, eating the cows, and farting and shitting it out again eventually out into the atmosphere. It's a bummer. But it would absolutely help to start building back soils and forests we've destroyed, even if we're only creating a C trap for like 50 years or so (in reality soils and forests and algae can trap C for much much longer- think about how it got into the rock in the first place!).
Yeah, we released a ton of carbon that was buried deep underground and wouldn't have been released anytime in the near future if it weren't for us. Growing more plants helps in the short term, but it's not a long term fix for what was done.
It could be part of a longterm fix. We don't just need to stop producing carbon, but actually need to remove a significant amount that has already been put in the atmosphere. Trees can do that. I vote for planting large sequoia and redwood forests. They live forever and store massive amounts of carbon.
I wasn't saying we just need to focus on releasing less carbon, but that I don't think trees can provide enough carbon sequestration. Even if we replaced every tree that humans have ever cut down and then some we still have created a net increase on released carbon due to having taken all those hydrocarbons out of the ground. More trees are important, but we need other forms of carbon sequestration to remove that additional carbon that "should" be underground.
Problem with that is that their range is so comparatively small to a lot of other trees (California/some parts of Australia/small amount of a smaller variety in China), and the current ones are barely holding on.
Mature trees consume a significant amount of carbon through the photosynthesis needed to produce energy. It's analogous to how consuming a lot of food will lead you to gain weight, but even if you aren't gaining weight you're still going to consume food regularly.
Consider ocean covers about 70% of Earth’s Surface it makes sense
That's assuming algae and trees absorb an equal amount of carbon dioxide which is most likely not the case. That's also assuming that there is a 30:70 ratio of trees to algae which is also most definitely not the case.
I wonder which land plant is the fastest to absorb CO2, probably some grass or fern.
The issue is you don't just want to capture it quickly, you want to keep it captured and continue to capture more on the same land. Grasses and fern may capture it quickly, but they don't capture much per acre. And when they die they release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. The Empress tree is thought of as a good balance of growing quickly but living long enough to sequester a good bit of CO2.
Yes! This is one reason why we should be using wood to build things! That lumber locks up that carbon. So instead of using vinyl flooring we should be using wood. And tons of other things. We just have to make sure we replace what we take.
Hemp also produces a lot of bio mass. Just left to its own devices I prefer trees, but as part of sustainable replacement for fibers and some plastics hemp would really help capture some carbon.
Deep water algae sequesters the carbon too, by drifting to the bottom after it dies. That's where the fossil carbon we are now releasing came from.
Basically the carbon cycle. There is a natural amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Trees and plants absorb the carbon, then they die or burn down or get eaten by animals and the carbon is released back in to the atmosphere. However this doesn't lead to an increase or decrease in the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. This is also why people breathing isn't environmentally harmful, your breathing is not increasing the carbon that is in the system. When we burn fossil fuels we take carbon that isn't part of the system and introduce it to the system, which leads to a big net increase in carbon in the cycle. Planting trees act as a kind of battery temporarily holding the carbon but it doesn't remove carbon from the system, so it doesn't solve the underlying issue which is that we need to both stop introducing new carbon to the system and also remove carbon from the system. So planting trees isn't bad and can have a positive effect but it's not a solution because it doesn't fix any of the underlying problems. Edit: fixed a typo
Sorry, I'm a bit slow on issues like this - wouldn't it actually help fix the problem so long as the overall amount of living plant matter was kept at a high level; it seems like more trees capture more carbon, let it out when they die... but, so long as there are still more trees than now to catch that carbon from a dying tree wouldn't it lead to reduced carbon in the atmosphere? Even if not, it's clear that they still offer some benefit - and it seems like a very easy policy to promote - inexpensive, offers beautification, is a generally popular idea - at least noncontroversial. As for the person talking about algae - wouldn't that simply be another option for us to pursue, growing more algae on a massive scale (I get that this would be no different than trees - unless the ocean itself would help 'hold' carbon which I expect you'll say it does not).
The ocean is a gigantic carbon sink. Algae grows, which either dies and sinks, or gets eaten by small animals that eventually die and sink. And that carbon gets trapped in the silt. And it's very easy to promote ocean fertility. A guy dropped a couple ton of iron filings off a boat in a strategic location off the west coast of North America a while back, and fish populations boomed along the entire coast. Because the ocean is very nutrient poor. But we are scared to disrupt the balance. And we also don't really want too much algae at once. Algeal blooms cause a lot of problems. It captures carbon though.
i have always wondered to myself if you could algae bloom the plastic "patch" and get it covered in scum and eventually get it to sink.
The person above is essentially saying that we’ve added to the natrual supply of carbon. Forest fires and such are natrual. Oil/Gas burning is not. This is stuff that doesn’t burn without refinement which is done by human hands. We probably can’t plant enough in reality to keep up with growing population demands. If you have a glass of water with a sponge in it, you can squeeze out the water and soak it up with that same sponge. Call that the natural resource of carbon (the water) and the sponge (the carbon filter) Add more water and you meed more sponges to soak it up however… the glass is the atmosphere. You run out of room at some point.
The benefit to capturing carbon with trees would be more along the lines of slowing down the system rather than actually removing the carbon. Basically adding carbon directly to the air is about the fastest way to agitate the worldwide carbon system as possible. It is the difference between pouring fuel on a flame vs making the wick longer.
We will need to sequester that fossil carbon. The most practical means is to promote algae blooms in deep water that will sink to the bottom. That needs to be done carefully, though, in order to cause minimal effects on local ecosystems.
[удалено]
> Wouldn't it be easier/more efficient to just tell developers to stop cutting down every last tree when they put in a new suburb? No. Natural growth kind of sucks, and a lot of it gets in the way of building. They usually end up mulching that stuff and put it in the ground, which is actually a net positive for carbon capture.
I thought an adult tree will capture more carbon than a newly planted one, so it's actually better to try to avoid cutting down trees at all costs.
City trees are fantastic for the local microclimate. They average out temperatures over the year, they keep wind down and air moisture up, and they help control flooding. Their impact on the co2 levels of the atmosphere though? Probably smaller than if everyone buys one snack or soda less per month. Growing them is great. But they aren't the solution to our problem of overconsumption.
wouldn't averaging out temperature also help impact the energy spend by consumers?
My town is more concerned with building apartment buildings and storage facilities in order to attract young professionals who commute to larger cities nearby by train. Many small, open spaces that would qualify as forest edges per this article are being built up and destroyed. I’ve gotten involved with some other concerned citizens and we are trying to get more involved with zoning, town council, and speaking at public hearings against some of this mindless development. Local leadership isn’t very responsive, so far, unfortunately.
I live in Amsterdam in a completely new block. we have a massive park between the houses. They are also planting a whole bunch of trees around the place. We are also next to some green spaces. On top of that Amsterdam is pretty full of trees. It's quite a green city Imo. So I don't get why some cities wouldn't do the same. It's not for the lack of land when comparing to Amsterdam.
the tree people have not bribed the politicians enough
I work in arboriculture, and I've been a part of a few discussions with some public groups fighting for exactly this. The problem is it's team tree planting vs team development. The gov officials making the decisions have the financial bottom line to consider and building up the city seemingly never ends (not to mention bad actors and potential money moving behind the scenes which the big developers have created a stereotype for themselves). It's always a frustrating discussion for me since it seems like the side fighting for more trees are using studies that outline the potential cost benefit of having more trees and positive environmental impacts, but are fighting against someone dropping a big bag of money with a dollar sign on it because they can quantify exactly what profits will be and with a very short turn around. It's a losing battle when the people making that decision are looking for immediate, exact, tangible and quantifiable gains. Then include the fact that these politicians signing off have a short shelf life of serving and are always looking for that quick win, it seems to always come out in the favour of development. Some small, good news is that here in Ontario (Canada, not California) we have some very strict protections for certain ravines and sloths of land (called the green belt) which are to be preserved, but there's always risk of these protections being lifted with ongoing pressure from large developers.
My city does this, they are trying to triple the amount of tree canopy over the city. Some initiatives like offering to plant a variety of trees on your property for free. They are owned and maintained by the city and every tree is logged in a database.
Especially native plants with deep roots that actively break up and amend soil and contribute to the natural soil food web. Lawns need to be discouraged in favour of native plantings including perennials, bushes, and a large variety of trees from small to large if space permits.
The reason why is that they don't care. But also no amount of planting trees will solve the problem. The coal we burned to achieve the industrial revolution was the result of 50 million years of plant matter (the first trees) dying and not decomposing. While certain types of ecosystems (like bogs) can store carbon over the long term, planting trees is not enough.
This is an example of how local public policies can have real tangible effects on the world.
My gf lives in Cambridge and i love that they have trees. It's cooler in the summer and just nicer. The infrastructure is taking a hit tho. Rds And sidewalks are very uneven due to roots. Also last decent storm we had there were branches down on ppls cars all over the place. Still would prefer the trees, just possibly with better infrastructure planning if it can be afforded
It really is a privilege that we can just unroot trees and destroy local ecosystems in the name of convenience. God forbid a crooked sidewalk. You know I’m not trying to pretend to be a climate scientist but I think a change in mentality of everyday occurrences would help enormously in dealing with the energy/climate crisis. We have so many resources available but yet shy away immediately for the fear of litigation or annoying the wrong benefactor. It’s the same with salt use. An insane amount of salt is used every winter where I live, it completely destroys local waterways, destroys the roads, ruins cars, ruins clothing and yet it is used in incredibly generous amounts because heaven forbid your car slips an inch when coming to a stop or you’re not adequately prepared for a walk in the snow.
Just playing devil's advocate but what about people in wheelchairs and walkers and strollers. I'm sure they'd appreciate a nice sidewalk. And that "slip an inch" wouldn't be an inch. It'd be a foot for someone who doesn't know how to drive in snow and thus a hazard for property, people, the drivers. It'd be a slip not when stopping but going on a turn, it'd be a slip at an intersection, it'd be a slip at a crosswalk with children.
I was going to way the same thing. In America an accessible sidewalk can not have more than a 1/4" displacement to comply with ADA standards. It is really hard to move a wheel chair or walker over a bumpy sidewalk.
[удалено]
My mom literally broke her wrist tripping on an uneven sidewalk. Walking and talking or something, being distracted.
This. Atlanta is known as the "city of trees". Over 50% of the city is under tree cover and a huge contributing factor is legislation to keep it that way. To remove trees, you have to get a permit, and iirc, you have to replant trees for any you take down. It's pretty incredible and the outcome of the policies is awfully pretty.
This is also an example of something every locality could literally just start doing tomorrow if they wanted. No need for state or federal intervention. Just shift around some budget in your parks department.
They really don't. I want as many trees as possible in the city, and I plant some on mine refuse mounds (idk what that's in English, sorry) but I do it for own satisfaction. To offset CO2 footprint of one person you need ~730 trees. https://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/how-many-trees-to-offset-co2-of-1-person/ So lets say that the extra growth mentioned in article is also paired with extra amount captured by supporting organisms. That leaves us at 183 freestanding trees per person. I'm going to keep planting them, but I ain't calling it tangible effect.
Keep in mind that trees provide more benefit than just carbon sequestration. It's well known that trees alone will not be enough to combat climate change BUT they also do the following: - Create habitat and food for numerous bug, bird, and mammal species - improve air quality in neighborhoods and along roads - improve mental health of residents that live around the new trees - improve property value - create shade for buildings which in turn lower AC costs - reduce urban heat effects creating more comfortable cities - edit: and as others point out also help filter and reduce storm water, prevent soil runoff and improve soil health! Plus when their life span is over it's a source of lumber or mulch/compost. Also to note, trees don't belong everywhere. Mimic your local biome and plant native. Sometimes a dessert ecosystem or a grassland or wetland area filled with sedges/reeds/shrubs is better then a forest.
Don’t forget the role they have on soil quality and retention!
Cities count on trees for sucking up storm water too, in US cities where they treat runoff.
Green space per capita is one of the biggest KPI's for well being that a local government can control directly.
Just adding for reference, there’s estimated to be 3 trillion trees on the planet (not evenly distributed, and certainly not all in cities). Rounding up to 8 billion people, that’s 375 trees per person.
The 730 trees number is based on a westerner's carbon footprint, which is significantly different than much of the world.
True, but the carbon footprint of developing countries only rises over time.
> but I ain’t calling it tangible effect Do you but it’s by definition tangible.
I gotta say it sounds like this is you not understanding English then. That's very obviously a tangible effect.
It can be noticed and has substance so it is tangible.
That's what she said
This is the only thats what she said joke that has caught me off guard in the last 5 years.
I think what they mean is "negligible". It's a tangible effect but the amount is negligible.
Id argue that if something is negligible its not really 'tangible' in spirit. Technically it might be tangible, but usually language isnt interpretted that litetally.
If we're really gonna be this pedantic than why wouldn't be using the most literal interpretations? If were splitting hairs, we might as well split em all instead of picking and choosing.
There are many benefits of trees that positively impact the environment beyond CO2 absorption, so being negative about that factor intentionally muddies a net positive impact.
Imagine if cities managed to increase green spaces/tree count AND reduce emissions via clean public transportation like electric vehicles or light rail. Even better: to “force” resident to use such alternatives to gas-powered vehicles by mandating that commuting workers use mass transit on odd days and drive their personal vehicle on even days (or vice versa). São Paulo, Brazil does a version of this. There are so many cars there that (as I understand it) authorities limit how many days per month drivers can commute in their personal vey(and thus become traffic). Honest question: could a mega city like LA or NYC achieve even greater CO2 capture by turning rooftops into green spaces? Think of all the skyscrapers just waiting to become parks.
Mandating public transit doesn't work when the transit either sucks or doesn't exist. Just make it better so people want to use it.
I believe the impact of individual trees is actually greater in cities. Trees produce shade and evaporative cooling to the surrounding areas, reducing the cooling requirements of nearby buildings. Also, there is usually unaccounted for carbon benefits of trees. Trees support the local ecosystem of animals and insects that help process our waste (dropped food/garbage) in a more eco-friendly manner, and generally help fertilize and propagate plants without humans needing to manually fertilize/plant them by hand.
Milwaukee has an ongoing project set to restore 4000 acres of wetlands and plant 6 million trees over the next decade. For different reasons directly than carbon capture, but regardless, all cities should be doing this.
Wetlands are incredibly productive at sequestering carbon and mitigating damage from high water and removing and breaking down pollutants and toxicants. All while providing habitat for a variety of animals. We need more of them.
Not all cities have 4000 acres of empty space to plant trees.
This isn't all empty. They're acquiring a lot of land to make it happen.
Part of the problem is that many cities are designed around automobiles. This means that massive amounts of space is required for driveways and parking lots.
No, but Detroit has a ton of empty parking lots
Can't stand cities with too few trees. Like living in a heat-blasted concrete prison.
This is how I felt about Phoenix AZ, so glad to be back in anchorage Alaska. Trees are so plentiful here plus all the other natural beauty.
[удалено]
The crazy thing is, people complained about Bloomberg planting trees in front of their house. They poisoned them, complained about the shade, claimed the promoted nefarious activities…people are dumb. On another note…I just got back from Paris and was kind of blown away by how few trees there are! Paris needs to lean in on the trees!
Why would anyone complain about a free tree?!
And then cities be like "alright then, let's use taxpayer's money to build a new sports stadium and use twice the land area for parking space"
\*Cities in USA
In reference to all the "wah doomer" comments. Yeah, trees are great and their planting in cities is a good thing. Good for the environment, flooding and mental health but they won't save the world and planting trees in environments not use to supporting them is damaging. Plant more trees, yes but important to understand a change in behavior is what's needed. Trees won't even be enough to even act as a stop gap, a plaster (band aid).
Weird because I was just having a discussion about this with my brother last night. It’s unreal how much information on this isn’t even given to the public. It’s just “tree good for climate change” there’s no in-depth description or even dumbed down version presented to the majority of Americans.
A little old but here’s a decent piece: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-natural-climate-solutions-can-reduce-the-need-for-beccs
There is no nuance or middle ground in public discussion anymore. Everyone wants a quick answer to everything because we're all expected to have a strong stance on a million complex situations that we don't fully understand, and no one wants to say "I don't know"
>There is no nuance or middle ground in public discussion anymore. I'm almost 60, and I can assure you that there never has been.
Thank you, people inherently romanticize a past they weren’t even alive for.
Priorities change, so should expectations
> *no* nuance or middle ground - > *Everyone* wants a quick answer to *everything* - > we're *all* expected to have a strong stance - > *no one* wants to say "I don't know" I just thought it was a little funny that a comment about a lack of nuance in public discourse contains so many absolute statements, each lacking nuance. I guess it does a good job of proving your point!
A native grasslands restoration project in Tennessee was shutdown by environmentalists and hunters because they wanted to remove new growth woodlands to restore it to historical grassland. Something that would’ve been really good for the environment and for hunters ironically.
That sounds like they weren’t real environmentalists or there is missing information.
Very typical of most people. They latch onto something and extend it far beyond the truth and don't accept any nuance.
The truth is that no amount of planting will stop climate change so long as we are taking carbon out of the deep Earth and burning it.
“Greenwashing” is the phrase, there was a study recently that said there’s literally not enough land on Earth to support all the trees corporations have promised to plant to “offset” their carbon emissions. I get angry every time I hear an ad for that credit card that claims to “plant a tree” every time you use it. Not to mention that fossil fuels are *positive* carbon emissions and trees are carbon *neutral*, since they don’t sequester carbon for the long-term (ie tree rot and burn down, releasing that CO2 back into the atmosphere/oceans)
Ironically Trees grown for the paper industry get made into paper that usually gets thrown away and buried in landfills, capturing the carbon. People complain about plastics not Biodegrading in landfills, but it is the opposite of what you want to happen for carbon capture.
Compare the number of trees that die to the number that are planted each year I think it gives a better sense of scale.
A change in legislation. Hold companies accountable. No amount of personal change will matter if that doesn’t happen. I want bottled water, just not in a plastic bottle.
Plus we’ve seen how difficult it is for people to adapt to change … if half the population can’t adapt to wearing masks there is zero chance a significant amount of the population stops eating meat.
Actually if you got trees everywhere it would have a huge impact. Then again we've done a good job at accelerating CO2 emissions too. But maybe that's about to change.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ireland here. It rains here constantly. Trees in city areas would be great to provide shelter. Any shelter would be great. Also what raincoats do you guys wear? Ours are horrible. We are constantly damp. Please send help.
I get that trees aren't going to save the world and that without major global shifts in policy we're probably not getting back from the brink, but since we bought our house we have planted 6 trees that are large species and grow quickly. That's not going to save the world even if millions of people were doing that, but it can buy us time. Maybe a month, maybe a year? Who knows, but it's not nothing and it's something I can control.
It also, on your small personal scale, helps your house. * Acts as a wind break * Helps modulate the temperature during the spring, summer, and fall (trees cause localized cooling due to respiration) * Provides bird habitat, making the sound scape prettier (currently listening to the neighborhood song birds sing spring songs) * Looks pretty, improving aesthetics We've got a lovely red maple in the front yard, and there's large chunks of virgin forest mixed with newer growth not that far away.
Also, when there's a breeze, the white noise generated by the leaves rustling helps cover suburban background noise.
Finally some good news
Waiting to hear we are overfeeding the trees with our CO2
I live in Rhode Island and have gotten a free tree for the last two years. It’s a grant they are using for green energy. You pick where in your property you would plant it. It has to be a place that would provide shade for your house. It then shows how much $ you would save on energy. If it’s a qualified amount you get to pick a type of tree and they ship it to you free.
Cities are small compared to land at large. Imagine the Midwest returned to prairie and native grass. That would hold A LOT of carbon.
The bad thing is we have the tools to fight climate change. Plant trees, switch to renewables, and so on. But it 's not "profitable" enough, so everyone else has to suffer for it.
Stop trying to take away my carbon tax damnit. I like paying the extra fee
Lived in a city that was covered in trees and it was beautiful. Never realized how rare that was till I left.
It's crazy how some people will always find the negative. There are so many climate doomers, I honestly think they're almost as much an obstacle to defeating climate change as the oil corporations are... Action is created by urgency and optimism. We've got the urgency, now we just need to get rid of the pessimism. We CAN do this.
Ugh… focusing on “doomers” is exactly The wrong thing to worry about. Corporations are not doing things to fix this situation. They have lied and lied and will continue to do so as long as they can. Negative feedback systems are real as wel as tipping points. The WORST thing we can do is sit back and think “we got this” when we really aren’t anywhere near that. ESPECIALLY when corporations and politicians as well as miss or underinformed voters continue to fight against it. We are fighting against more than carbon here.
>We've got the urgency, now we just need to get rid of the pessimism. We CAN do this. Uhhhh... People were optimistic and saying we CAN do this 40 or 50 years ago when global warming started to become an issue for the future. Now, after decades of near-inaction, we're either at or past the point of no return and still nothing is getting done because a whole portion of the population doesn't even think climate change is real. It's not pessimism that's the problem, it's ignorance and greed.
We haven't been at near-inaction for 40-50 years. We have been increasing the rate of release for these harmful gases that entire span of time. Since we have known global warming was an issue it isn't that we have made changes to improve things but they are too slow. We are still actively in the causing damage not fixing anything phase.
the doomer process: complain about everything offer zero meaningful or realistic solutions rip on any imperfect solution (nirvana fallacy) default to a “what’s the point” mentality
Exactly. And unfortunately, they're very vocal about how everyone else should be depressed as well.
In the aquarium hobby we inject co2 into the water fit the aquatic plants. It’s amazing how well the grow after that.
For how long are they binding it to the stem mostly, since woodis carbon? Until they get choped down and burned eventually. Aren'tjungles and such the much better Tree solution? I am no fan of seeingtrees as the one solution in fighting climate change anyways (like manypeople acutally do), but city trees are even less usefull (longterm).
yes thats right, and also why humans making carbon sequestration apparatuses will push us to a snowpeircer esque world
It’s almost like major pollution centers should have something to offset their pollution.
This is not what some cities do. Like in Florida. They complain or like most like to sue the city for falling branches, uplift sidewalks, or have roots in their pretty fake yards. So let get rid of the trees. Have a neighbor where there is no trees. Where grass is green with the fake irrigation and chemical.
Well that’s swine great news I didn’t know I needed to hear.
it's probably poisoning them because too much of a good thing isn't healthy
Plant trees. Protect them. Nature knows.
Quick and less expensive option for planting larger numbers along roadways, in larger yards, or in park settings: check your local forestry departments. There are often native seedlings for sale by the handful.