Global number of trees is order of magnitude higher than the previous estimate | Hacker News Reader

Global number of trees is order of magnitude higher than the previous estimate

nature.com

22 pointsshawndumas12 comments

Does this mean that any tree planting efforts would need to be dramatically increased to have the desired impact on CO2 levels?

Trees take more carbon out in the growth phase. So we need fast growing trees, then cut them down and bury them and repeat until profit.

Does it have to be buried? can it be used?

Burning the older trees defeats the point of planting them in the first place (to remove carbon from the atmosphere). You might transplant them somewhere for aesthetic purposes, but then they're taking up space that could be used to grow young, carbon-hungry trees. I guess that leaves turning them into lumber.

I said used, not burn... paper, construction, and many other uses for wood beyond burning. Since lumber, and even paper would eventually mean burying most likely, that would be a decent usage... though wooden structures have their practical limits, I don't think we're there yet.

You offset some of the carbon savings with the processing costs, but as long as you use the wood for long term construction or for stuff that will be buried in a landfill it should work.

Paper is going to end up being burned or in landfills. If it ends up in landfills it could* become methane which is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

* Someone who knows more about decomposition might tell me I'm wrong about the processes that create methane.

This brought up an interesting question - how much paper is recycled vs trashed?

Atleast in the US, 67% of paper was recycled in 2013. So 2/3rd isn't burned or compacted. Thats pretty impressive.

Could also mean we could need to plant less trees than we thought.

At the very least, the models have to be updated to use a number of trees an order of magnitude higher than we previously thought.

No.

While there are more than we estimated that doesn't mean there are enough. A similar story was on the front page recently that reported that since humanity became "global" there has been a 47% reduction in the number of trees in the world.

I should start a lumber company so the actual # trees become the estimated # trees. Studies citing the previous estimate will also be correct.

What would you do with all that lumber?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com