gizmodo.com: Tree planting projects seem like a great climate solution—lots of trees can sequester lots of carbon that would otherwise be warming the atmosphere. But, surprise surprise, it turns out you can’t just plop any old tree into the ground and expect to reap environmental benefits, new research finds.
7 comments:
I had no idea what ‘artificial foresting’ was referring to before reading this article, and the article’s explanation was straightforward. I have never thought about the consequences of commercial tree plantation – I just assumed that planting trees was beneficial for the environment because it helps with carbon dioxide storage and reduces water runoffs. The article gave several reasons why commercial tree planting doesn’t do as much good as we thought. To me, it seems like altering the natural state of land and reducing biodiversity are the biggest damages of artificial forests. A lot of these tree planting companies don’t necessarily tell the public what they are doing to balance out the drawbacks. I think this is a gray area or gaps in understanding that many companies are using (probably intentionally too) for business purposes. I think the ecological loss that altering the natural state of land has long-term, irreversible effect on the environment – the damage may not be apparent anytime soon, but when the biodiversity loss becomes noticeable, it’s often too late to undo.
When I first clicked on the article I was thinking of an artificial forest like the trees in the lorax, or fake trees, but turns out I was wrong. What they talk about in the article is creating a re-planted forest that wasn’t there before. I am a huge fan of environmental science and was so curious what they meant, but now I see how planting in mass in certain places can cause more harm than good. I think that is another thing about what makes restoring the environment so difficult is thinking through all of the effects of something even if it seems positive. I think that we need to figure out how to plant trees in certain places that will not be negatively impacted by their presence, and preserve their biodiversity, while also planting a diversity of trees in order to help boost biodiversity. I love environmental science and was really glad to see this in the page of articles, because theater is an incredibly harmful activity for the environment and as long as we are self aware about that fact and work to fix it, I think the problems can be reduced.
I had previously heard of artificial foresting, but I always interpreted as a forest that was controlled and cut down in yearly cycles to not deplete current resources. I was extremely surprised to find out that instead of for farming, it was used to just replenish levels in the atmosphere. I was even more shocked to find out that it was being done in ecosystems that were previously not forests. It made a lot more sense in places that used to have forests or if forests that were cut down were replenished. I agree with Jesús Aguirre-Gutiérrez in that artificial foresting doesn't need to be bad- it just needs more of a holistic approach than what is going on in the current practice. I hope that more research is done and action will be taken soon. I have come to realize that many actions in the environmental science realm is taken before the proper research and background- and once an action is taken it takes even longer for it to be stopped or fixed from its bugs.
Planting new trees is an idea for carbon capture we’ve had for a long time, but in a new study, researchers from the university of oxford concluded that planting trees isn’t great for genetic biodiversity, which can lead to increased diseases among plants and animals. Grasslands, despite not having huge things to capture tons of carbon, are already extremely effective carbon sinks. Nothing is going to get better in the world of climate change if we plant more trees. The solution is holding companies accountable for their actions. There is this separate charity that I like that instead of creating new forests, it protects old ones in the Amazon from being cut down. One thing that the article doesn’t mention is renewable forests, that are cut down in rotation every couple years to meet various industries' wood needs. I would (no pun intended) like to see how that process also affects the climate, and the biodiversity in those forests.
When I first clicked on the article, my lower school education that tells you tress solve practically every problem there is to man was very confused. It didn't make sense in my mind, how in the world would planting more trees not help? After reading it though, it makes perfect sense. While I do understand the concept of replanting trees for the sake of the environment, I don't understand why you would plant them in non native spaces? 30% reduction on the diversity of plants and ants? While this article was pretty short, and I would have loved to read into the stats a little bit more, I think its numbers are very revealing. It is the fact that if all the trees were essentially replaced it still would not help as much as we think it would because of the sheer amount of emissions we have. These articles often make me think about the movement to make theater more friendly because we use so much lumber. The article talks about how we must hold polluting industries accountable and I just wonder how much the theater industry is a part of that
I have known about these artificial forests for a while now, but did not take the time to consider what the article says about species of trees being planted and the impact they have on the surrounding ecosystem. It makes total sense that planting more of just a few or even one species into an already thriving ecosystem will throw off the balance of everything that lives and grows there. While the article did say exactly how to overcome this problem, they did say that it is not the most efficient way to mitigate carbon emissions and instead the focus should be on moving away from unsustainable resources like fossil fuels. I do agree that global warming is a major problem and the side that thinks it's a host is dooming future generations to try and live on a planet that is already too far gone to fix. Artificial forests are a good idea on trying to counteract climate change, but it does not get to the real source of the problem in that most countries are still heavily reliant on energy sources that are killing the planet.
This article was very informative, I like most have donated to “every dollar is another tree planted” organizations thinking it would be beneficial to the environment, I thought that it was pretty straightforward. Trees help the environment, so planting a bunch must be good. I had never thought about the consequences of planting trees where there didn’t used to be trees. I also didn’t know how little tree replantation helped in the first place, I knew that the ocean was better at providing oxygen than trees were but I still thought trees were better at getting rid of carbon. Although, it does make logical sense that after all if we want to get rid of all of the carbon that is in the atmosphere right now we need to also stop putting more and more carbon there at a faster rate than we can ever get rid of it in the first place.
Post a Comment