13 thoughts on “Planting Trees? It’s not That Simple”
Planting trees to be trees and not forests is still quite valuable for other things besides carbon storage, especially if they are tended to get them established after planting.
– shade in pavement-heavy environments
– homes for birds and tree rats squirrels
– windbreaks on open prairie or cropland
– privacy
– visual break from buildings (psychological)
– climbing for children
– fruit and nuts
– local erosion control
– hiding architectural blunders (😉)
I would like to see how long-established pine tree cropping (at its traditional rate) fares over an entire cycle. If you count the “rotting residue” negatives against the cumulative positives of carbon storage in A-frames and furniture, and noting that pine stand harvests are staggered.
Also, can it be cost-effective to also take the waste branches and needles to use as bio-fuel, doing something “productive” rather than just feeding grubs and termites.
The rotting residue is part of the carbon cycle so is not a ‘problem.’ Adding carbon from fossil sources is.
That is ignoring the time scale to catastrophe of course.
I think they see the rotting residue in terms of not only removing a carbon sink, but initiating large quantities of carbon release as well. That’s why I ask about the steady-state cycle (pine tree cropping) perspective.
initiating large quantities of carbon release as well
That is where the time scale problem comes in. We are very short on time.
However we need wood, we need to eat etc, not going to stop, so pissing and moaning about it is pretty useless. It is the fossil carbon that caused the problem and needs to go. Easy peesy.
This is the third posted show where PBS actively discourages the planting of trees! First, another show featuring Beverly Law stating the first 10-20 years of tree growth is a carbon source. Second, posted on crock 2/11/23 ( 11/02/23?) titled ‘Why Tree Planting Campaigns Don’t Work’. Third this one. Planting trees dos not hurt old growth forests FFS. Piss poor agenda to promote.
It’s not really that planting trees is bad – it’s what humans take from the idea of planting a lot of trees (and specifically the current Presidential Administration). Trump himself in 2020 had an executive order to plant 1 trillion trees by 2030 (only to hamper it in the second term by labeling it DEI): https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/g-s1-55090/trump-dei-trees-removal-climate-change
But, the idea that planting 1 trillion trees as a solution to climate change is false on many levels. Plus, the idea that new growth trees can easily offset older forests and be environmentally neutral is also false – and that also is what Trump is trying to do: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/03/trump-national-forest-executive-order
There is a basic and strong Implication that planting trees IS bad. Buggar all suggestions to the contrary or positive suggestions. Personally believe planting trees is a Great idea and am disappointed, as in pissed off, with PBS. trump fks everything he touches.
I see it as pushback against the simplistic goal of planting a zillion trees (many if not most of which would soon die without at least some effort of early tending), and selling those efforts as reliable* carbon offset packages to companies or as greenwashing.
It’s the quality of tree [re-]planting that matters as much if not more than the quantity. Good planning can keep from wasting all of those saplings. You have to keep deer from eating hardwood saplings, for instance.
______________
*Warming-aggravated heat and drought stress, bark beetles and wildfires can put that carbon right back in the atmosphere.
Yes to both points. The Mr. Beast planting failed because there was no follow up after the planting. Trees need care after planting, especially if a bunch of them are introduced at once in an open field.
Humans have the impulse to think of planting trees as a – Presto! Instantaneous better planet! – sort of thing. Tree planting initiatives have a very sketchy track record because of this impulse, combined with poor planning in the first place: https://www.dw.com/en/why-do-most-tree-planting-campaigns-fail/a-69821119
We should still do it – I especially like urban planting – but the simplistic thinking that it solves our carbon and environmental problems is a real danger.
More effective carbon sink short-run is plant all that in hemp and then make the 33,000+ things that can be made from hemp. And though once past the 20 year mark start to become carbon sinks they don’t sink much carbon if cut down at 30 0r 35
The advantages of cultivating dope, oops hemp, are so numerous it begs the question why the hell not??
If it takes 20 years for trees to be come carbon sinks, and presumably another 20 years until they are carbon neutral, we better start killing seedlings and chopping down saplings. We do not have 40 years to add net carbon. Just saying.
Planting trees to be trees and not forests is still quite valuable for other things besides carbon storage, especially if they are tended to get them established after planting.
– shade in pavement-heavy environments
– homes for birds and
tree ratssquirrels– windbreaks on open prairie or cropland
– privacy
– visual break from buildings (psychological)
– climbing for children
– fruit and nuts
– local erosion control
– hiding architectural blunders (😉)
I would like to see how long-established pine tree cropping (at its traditional rate) fares over an entire cycle. If you count the “rotting residue” negatives against the cumulative positives of carbon storage in A-frames and furniture, and noting that pine stand harvests are staggered.
Also, can it be cost-effective to also take the waste branches and needles to use as bio-fuel, doing something “productive” rather than just feeding grubs and termites.
The rotting residue is part of the carbon cycle so is not a ‘problem.’ Adding carbon from fossil sources is.
That is ignoring the time scale to catastrophe of course.
I think they see the rotting residue in terms of not only removing a carbon sink, but initiating large quantities of carbon release as well. That’s why I ask about the steady-state cycle (pine tree cropping) perspective.
initiating large quantities of carbon release as well
That is where the time scale problem comes in. We are very short on time.
However we need wood, we need to eat etc, not going to stop, so pissing and moaning about it is pretty useless. It is the fossil carbon that caused the problem and needs to go. Easy peesy.
This is the third posted show where PBS actively discourages the planting of trees! First, another show featuring Beverly Law stating the first 10-20 years of tree growth is a carbon source. Second, posted on crock 2/11/23 ( 11/02/23?) titled ‘Why Tree Planting Campaigns Don’t Work’. Third this one. Planting trees dos not hurt old growth forests FFS. Piss poor agenda to promote.
It’s not really that planting trees is bad – it’s what humans take from the idea of planting a lot of trees (and specifically the current Presidential Administration). Trump himself in 2020 had an executive order to plant 1 trillion trees by 2030 (only to hamper it in the second term by labeling it DEI):
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/g-s1-55090/trump-dei-trees-removal-climate-change
But, the idea that planting 1 trillion trees as a solution to climate change is false on many levels. Plus, the idea that new growth trees can easily offset older forests and be environmentally neutral is also false – and that also is what Trump is trying to do:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/03/trump-national-forest-executive-order
Trump 2020 EO:
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-one-trillion-trees-executive-order-promoting-conservation-regeneration-nations-forests/
There is a basic and strong Implication that planting trees IS bad. Buggar all suggestions to the contrary or positive suggestions. Personally believe planting trees is a Great idea and am disappointed, as in pissed off, with PBS. trump fks everything he touches.
I see it as pushback against the simplistic goal of planting a zillion trees (many if not most of which would soon die without at least some effort of early tending), and selling those efforts as reliable* carbon offset packages to companies or as greenwashing.
It’s the quality of tree [re-]planting that matters as much if not more than the quantity. Good planning can keep from wasting all of those saplings. You have to keep deer from eating hardwood saplings, for instance.
______________
*Warming-aggravated heat and drought stress, bark beetles and wildfires can put that carbon right back in the atmosphere.
Yes to both points. The Mr. Beast planting failed because there was no follow up after the planting. Trees need care after planting, especially if a bunch of them are introduced at once in an open field.
Humans have the impulse to think of planting trees as a – Presto! Instantaneous better planet! – sort of thing. Tree planting initiatives have a very sketchy track record because of this impulse, combined with poor planning in the first place:
https://www.dw.com/en/why-do-most-tree-planting-campaigns-fail/a-69821119
We should still do it – I especially like urban planting – but the simplistic thinking that it solves our carbon and environmental problems is a real danger.
More effective carbon sink short-run is plant all that in hemp and then make the 33,000+ things that can be made from hemp. And though once past the 20 year mark start to become carbon sinks they don’t sink much carbon if cut down at 30 0r 35
Plantations are not a forest …
The advantages of cultivating dope, oops hemp, are so numerous it begs the question why the hell not??
If it takes 20 years for trees to be come carbon sinks, and presumably another 20 years until they are carbon neutral, we better start killing seedlings and chopping down saplings. We do not have 40 years to add net carbon. Just saying.