Comment by rob74

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This also doesn't really matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It depends. For forestry stock there's no real way to avoid monoculture if you need a lot and you need it soon (40-60 years). There's much more to this answer though because Phytopthora is hammering larch, Ips is hammering spruce and red band needle blight is hammering pines. That's another topic on itself. Broadly though, there's nothing wrong with a monoculture per-se ([Pando][1], Boreal woodland) it just depends on how it is managed and how well the ecology does in response to it.

That being said, personally, I favour the continuous cover approach of mixing up natives broadleaves with non-native conifers as long as the site isn't ancient or semi-ancient natural woodland (ASNW) or plantation on ancient woodland site (PAWS). For those sites, they're too important for use as a commercial forestry site and arguably the ecology needs to be restored, maintained and managed. Those sites are precious and should be managed properly in-line with their identified [NVC identifier][2]. The one exception to this is coppicing. Having a coppice on ancient sites where coppicing was practised is one of the few woodland management techniques that adds to ecology over all four woodland layers over all time frames.

I never thought I'd answer that question on HN. I appreciate you asking. What's your take on forestry monocultures?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree) [2]: https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/nvc/

Sounds dubious. Most trees are not nearly 50% roots by biomass. The roots that remain will get broken down, but not into gases exclusively. A new tree that’s growing is actively capturing new carbon. Cutting down a tree won’t help much, but if a new tree grows where the old one was, it’s hard to find reasoning to suggest a net loss.

What happens to the parts that are cut down and used is what matters. If you build long-lasting houses from them, then it's probably good for the climate, as long as new tree is planted in its place. If you use the wood to make toilet paper, then it's not so good for climate since that carbon will return to the atmosphere faster.

>and when the roots break down all that carbon is released to the atmosphere.

How do you figure, exactly?

In the USA, at least, most the lumber for home construction is farmed. We don't rely on "old growth" for much anymore.

Meaning the forests are kept forests and new trees are planted to replace the ones that are cut down. The land the trees are farmed from is kept forested because it provides a income source for the owners. Also the trees tend to grow much faster then they do in natural forests because things like spacing out trees is optimized.

This is a big complaint for wood working folks, ironically. Because natural grown trees grow slower the wood grain is much tighter and ends up being generally higher quality. Where as modern farmed wood has huge rings.

Although it isn't too bad because you don't use soft woods much for things like furniture making. Where as construction lumber is almost all soft wood.

So at least in the USA the ratio of grown-to-cut wood is about 1.92. So we plant trees nearly 2 to 1 versus what we cut down.

Most (all?) of the carbon sequestered by a tree that dies and rots on the forest floor goes back into the atmosphere. So the "fixing by all future generations" is just the same carbon sink as the current 1 alive standing tree for that spot of real estate.