Quote:
Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross
I agree about trying multiple solutions for the climate crisis. But planting trees is never simple. To obtain peak carbon intake, monoculture would never work. How would scientists determine the correct trees, and if the correct trees are selected, will the trees allow for biodiversity on such a large scale? Otherwise, more trees than what was listed would need to be planted to reach the desired effect as you’re losing carbon intake due to the lack of biodiversity (example: agricultural produce with regards to monoculture vs multi-plant farming). This solution would also take considerable time as trees don’t reach maximum carbon intake until maturity, and then, old-growth trees cannot intake carbon as well as the younger mature trees. Planting this many trees could theoretically increase evotranspiration causing a possible warming effect, as there’s more water vapour in the air; however I have no citation to back that up, it’s just an assumption from my current line of work, which is in environmental science, notably water resource.
|
I don't think it is just about planting 'new' trees, or even just trees, but about protecting what we have, planting new, protecting forests, sustainable farming, soil protection, and researching what is best for the future.
Might want to stop clear cutting the Amazon as well.
Helping farmers move to no-till farming would help.
Inner city tree planting would help. Lots of cities are doing this already.
There is obviously enough research out there to help us get going on this front. More is needed, but the excuses are getting lame at this point.