“Planting trees” is one of those things that sound great on paper, or in a sound-bite, but the reality is problematic.
1. “Planting trees” actually means “planting seedlings”. There is no guarantee that the majority of seedlings will grow to be full sized trees. Once a “tree is planted” then the box is ticked.
On our farm we've planted a variety of about 500 native seedlings this year, and let me tell you, it takes hard work to keep them alive through the first Summer, even when mulched and given protectors.
A planted seedling is not a tree.
2. People tend to plant monocultures I can't count the number of times someone has pointed to neat, ordered ranks of nothing but pine-trees or blue-gums and labelled it a “forest”. Nope. A forest is an ecosystem, a great variety of plants — trees, shrubs, bushes, mosses, fungi, ferns, lichens — and animals. A monoculture is not “habitat” to anything much.
City people especially see these things and feel good that they're there, but it's like comparing a properly cooked and seasoned steak with the cheapest cheeseburger you can find.
Sorry, not a forest.
3. These monocultures, pines and bluegums and what have you, are not designed to be there forever (unlike a real forest). They're a crop. They're designed to be harvested. Bluegums for paper pulp; pine for furniture and framing timber. They're a product. They're planted, harvested and processed with more fossil-fuel inputs than they “save” by “carbon sequestration”.
Planting trees is good, but it's very much about appeasing someone's conscience, or looking “green”. The most important thing is not to cut them down in the first place. But growth economics demand that we do exactly that: clear land, cut down trees.
I understand your point that planting trees doesn't 1:1 compensate the ecosystems destroyed. I just have a nitpick on the delivery:
The overall theme of your comment was criticizing planting trees and how it's "problematic" but spreading this message isn't constructive, it just paralyzes the ones trying to help, leading to a net negative.
Well, yes I'm here to point out the greenwash, and attempt to get people to think critically.
The problem with these "tree-planting" programmes is they're rooted in simple economic thinking. Mostly along the lines of "Area X is being cleared because my generous donors need to build a factory which will be good for jobs and growth" ... followed by ... "Well, let's plant trees in Area Y, which will offset the damage and give everyone the green warm fuzzies. Win/Win!" This is how they think.
Critical thinking means asking questions. What's the survival rate? What range of species? What are you doing to halt land clearing? etc. Because for every linear inch you think they give, they are taking a square mile and making money from it. Asking those questions is not paralysis, it's direct action, it's the start of actual accountability.
And the solution for any paralysis is simple: go plant a seedling (or fund some specific person who will).
Aside: I asked the marginalia guy if he could add something to his search engine, and he did (which was amazing!). I don't have a lot of money and I really wanted to do something for him, so I planted a seedling. I think it was $1. It's out there on my place, growing. It's Summer right now and I've spent quite a few hot days lugging heavy watering-cans long distances to keep it, and other seedlings planted at the same time, alive. In 10 years it'll be a tree (or dead, these things happen).
> 2. People tend to plant monocultures I can't count the number of times someone has pointed to neat, ordered ranks of nothing but pine-trees or blue-gums and labelled it a “forest”. Nope. A forest is an ecosystem, a great variety of plants — trees, shrubs, bushes, mosses, fungi, ferns, lichens — and animals. A monoculture is not “habitat” to anything much.
I'm not disagreeing with you on the bigger picture (at all) but I'm interested:
1. If a monoculture not-quite-a-forest is planted and not harvested, won't it gradually become a more varied ecosystem over time? As in, won't shrubs, bushes, mosses, fungi, ferns, lichens, and animals (not to mention other varieties of trees) gradually 'move in'?
2. Are we in danger of letting perfect be the enemy of good here? Would we rather have no new trees at all in a space, or a monoculture not-quite-a-forest (assuming it's not for harvest)?
1. Yes, eventually. Nature does that. But we're talking a long time scale here more than a human lifetime. And it'll never be as good as if you never cleared the land in the first place. Not even 10% as good.
2. Sure, always good to have more trees, but really what you need is ecosystems. For example, many trees don't reproduce without understory, which is the smaller trees and shrubs and plants that make up a forest. You don't get that with monocultures.
I can look out my window and see some beautiful Melaleuca trees in the middle of a grass paddock for cattle. If you drove by, you'd think maybe “nice to see some trees there. Lovely blossom.”
Those trees are functionally dead. They will never reproduce, because they depend on the understory to do so, which was cleared a long time ago. To say nothing of cattle nibbling on potential seedlings (but you know, food production is important).
This is one reason why the count of species that go extinct every day is so high. It's not that we exterminated them specifically, but we exterminated their food's food's food that was part of a tangled web of evolved inter-dependencies.
Monocultures, or near monocultures, don't have the complexity. Maybe best to think of them as “social housing for (a very few) varieties of animals”.
I guess, the long and short of it is, everything we're currently doing is largely palliative care, and just take a little care that whatever it is you do doesn't do as much harm as good.
No. Nothing so calculated. The standard of “good” is the old adage that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. For example, don't use disproportionate amounts of fossil fuels or poisons or plastics to plant a single seedling. Good intentions, but a net worse outcome.
1. “Planting trees” actually means “planting seedlings”. There is no guarantee that the majority of seedlings will grow to be full sized trees. Once a “tree is planted” then the box is ticked.
On our farm we've planted a variety of about 500 native seedlings this year, and let me tell you, it takes hard work to keep them alive through the first Summer, even when mulched and given protectors.
A planted seedling is not a tree.
2. People tend to plant monocultures I can't count the number of times someone has pointed to neat, ordered ranks of nothing but pine-trees or blue-gums and labelled it a “forest”. Nope. A forest is an ecosystem, a great variety of plants — trees, shrubs, bushes, mosses, fungi, ferns, lichens — and animals. A monoculture is not “habitat” to anything much.
City people especially see these things and feel good that they're there, but it's like comparing a properly cooked and seasoned steak with the cheapest cheeseburger you can find.
Sorry, not a forest.
3. These monocultures, pines and bluegums and what have you, are not designed to be there forever (unlike a real forest). They're a crop. They're designed to be harvested. Bluegums for paper pulp; pine for furniture and framing timber. They're a product. They're planted, harvested and processed with more fossil-fuel inputs than they “save” by “carbon sequestration”.
Planting trees is good, but it's very much about appeasing someone's conscience, or looking “green”. The most important thing is not to cut them down in the first place. But growth economics demand that we do exactly that: clear land, cut down trees.