Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjmcqueen | Hacker News Reader

The study has data to back up it's findings and suggests tree growth can help; what data are you using to back up your statement?

From the article: "The Crowther Lab of ETH Zurich has published a study in the journal Science that shows this would be the most effective method to combat climate change."

View on HN

To stop climate change you need to plant a sufficient number of trees to effectively unburn all coal, gas, and oil and then make sure these trees never decompose. You just have to look at the tonnage of coal we dig up, we'd have to bury an equal amount of charcoal made from the global forests to offset those emissions.

> To stop climate change you need to plant a sufficient number of trees to effectively unburn all coal, gas, and oil and then make sure these trees never decompose.

Small correction:

To stop climate change you need to plant a sufficient number of trees to effectively unburn all coal, gas, and oil and then make sure any trees that decompose are replaced by new trees (naturally or as part of a managed system).

You're technically correct, the best kind of correct :)

You are saying the same thing, the method can be effective as part of a bigger picture and useless if the only choice.

So where exactly does the article say this method will stop the climate crisis?

It doesn't, because it's not true as the ETH reseachers are well aware and will readily tell you. As I mentioned in my post, trees ALONE will not stop the climate crisis because the only thing they'll really help with is CO2 absorption, and climate change is driven by more than just C)2 levels.

Yes, but CO2 levels are the main driver of anthropomorphic climate change, so reducing them by 2/3 (since industrial times) will likely help quite a lot.

Ah the old absolutist "doing something doesn't get us 100% of the way there, so we should sit on our hands" argument.

This is a pretty uncharitable read on the post you are replying to. I see nothing in it stating or implying that nothing should be done. That said, it's wrong because it significantly understates what portion of climate change is driven by CO3 concentration, and thus understates the impact the tree planting idea would have.

Preposterous. Where exactly did I suggest this? What I'm saying this in no way will "fully solve" the climate crisis and I'm afraid that presenting this approach as a complete solution will lull people into a false sense of security and complacency.

A lot of the claims made in this piece are very exaggerated re: potential to address climate change

Reply on news.ycombinator.com