A news story was released by the Associated Press last week about a study claiming if the world planted just 1 Trillion more trees, to the existing 3 Trillion on the planet, we could absorb as much as 25 years of CO2 in the coming decades. That is basically filling the entire United States area-wise with forest.
Can anyone plant that many trees?
Everyone loves a “let’s plant trees” story of course. It is just an inherently feel-good, good-for-nature type of idea. And, it is more cost effective than nearly all alternatives when it comes to mitigating risks from climate change. Trees are indeed highly evolved CO2 absorption machines.
It didn’t take long for some critical thinking to kick in on the actual feasibility of such an idea, or how it matches with current reality. Just this past February, National Geographic published a Deforestation Facts and Information story how the world lost 502,000 square miles (1.3 million square kilometers) of forest between 1990 and 2016. Planting that many trees not only needs a massive mobilization effort (as any plan mitigating the climate emergency does) around the planet, but also needs to halt and reverse the current trends. Trends that are moving towards supporting more and more people and growing related increasing amounts of food.
I don’t need to look any further than my own area in Southeast Michigan to see these trends. I imagine many of you will have similar observations. I probably don’t know a single person that can’t tell a story about a specific parcel of woods they used to know. A woodland now gone to some housing development or commercial property. Clearcut, flattened, and gone – like it never existed.
“The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing which stands in the way.”
William Blake, 1799
In this land of individual property rights and capitalistic development, it is difficult to control what land owners do or don’t do with their own property. You’ll find no shortage of opinions on that one.
It can be influenced though. Property owners do have to obey local ordinances in order to develop, get building permits and have site plans approved. A municipality that has planning and engineering departments in tune with data on its existing natural assets coupled with monitoring policies to preserve them appears to be a minimum requirement to controlling further deforestation of an area.
In my own research, tree ordinances vary greatly. I have yet to come across any standards for a specific region. It is sad to think this is completely at the whim of rotating city governments, influential developers, and an engaged (or lack thereof) public. One of our Michigan state forestry experts remarked to me “What I do see is a mix of everything from 100% replacement to no replacement as long as they have a permit.“
Replacement seems to be the focus of many of them. Replacement generally involves specifying a percentage of the trees removed that must be replaced with smaller trees. This is done by a measurement of the tree’s diameter at breast height (dbh) or 4.5 feet (1.37m). For example; a 36 inch oak is removed, and the city has a 50% dbh replacement policy. The developer must then plant numerous new trees amounting to 18 inches in diameter.
Some ordinances go further into detail to create separate replacement policies, often more stringent, for landmark (or mature) trees. Even in these cases, a landmark tree may be removed, just replaced with perhaps more smaller trees than if a “standard” tree was taken out. Many replacement policies offer an option to developers to pay a fee if planting new isn’t feasible (or desired?).
Replacement alone isn’t enough
The problem I see with replacement policies alone is that they fail to recognize the existing value of canopy and contributions of mature trees. Existing mature trees, more notably known as Hub or Mother Trees, have established communication networks through their root systems and underground mycorrhizal fungi to the surrounding plant life. As Paul Stamets puts it, this is nature’s internet.
Canopy provides mitigation to urban heat island effects which is increasing through climate change. Mature trees provide more storm water management and erosion prevention, both increasing with larger precipitation events. They provide the very communication network that surrounding trees rely upon for their survival. Simply put, these landmark, hub, or mother trees are ecologically worth a lot more than the sum of their diameters.
Tree ordinances may ultimately have future canopy in mind, but do little to prevent damage right here and now if the only mitigation measures are planting more smaller trees. There are real, tangible, measurable benefits to these established hubs. Benefits that are poorly recognized or valued in replacement fees or replacement tree policies. While some more progressive cities have recognized this and taken steps to also put consideration of canopy protection into local laws, they remain in the minority.
All hands on deck
The public also has a responsibility to keep a watchful eye on their local environment. It doesn’t help if it is only developers that have the most interactions with the local governments. Let your local leaders know this is important to you. Look up the tree ordinances in your own area and let them know if you think they are lacking.
Some municipalities can put on a public green face with tree planting initiatives and the like, while authorizing massive developments from a completely different area of the government because they lack the regulatory protections.
Honestly it is hard to be critical of tree planting initiatives. We have a lot of past sins against nature to repent. Many cities are recognizing the value of the right tree, in the right place when it comes to planting. Many weigh benefits of perhaps removing older, non-native trees and replacing them with more native species. It is truly a tricky balancing act when it comes to creating sustainable tax revenue through land development and preserving natural assets. There are pressures from all directions. The changing climate is bringing new pests and new risks to both natural and man-made infrastructure.
If our regulatory framework doesn’t keep up, it will be impossible to get any sense of making progress. I am reminded of a cartoon I saw of a person planting trees behind a bulldozer flattening everything in front of it. Is this our version of progress?
We can rally behind planting and replacing trees all we like. Politicians may love to proclaim they are “pro-tree” and pose for pictures, shovel and sapling in hand. It is a great statistic to know how many trees were planted. It is going to be a long road to that 1 Trillion. Perhaps the harder one to answer is: “How many did you save?”
Enjoyed this well-written article. I like the way you do your research and are informed on these issues. It’s too bad everyone did not have the awareness and concern that you do. Keep carrying the torch. It IS hard to be optimistic. Some have even said that optimism is the problem. The idea is that perhaps if more people were pessimistic about our future, we would do more about it. However, psychology tells us that people tend to take even less action when in a pessimistic mindset. Yet another quandary regarding our climate situation. Frankly, the large number of books out there written by environmentalists that try to put an optimistic spin on what we are doing to the planet and how to reverse it is sickening. Still, I argue that there is something we do not know yet. When people are ready and willing, the solutions will appear. So, perhaps we need to go beyond pessimism straight into all out massive fear. When we get to that level, which may be too late, we will do a lot more. Who knows? I wonder what it says for the process of evolution itself that it’s most “successful” resulting species is not wired correctly to save itself. Perhaps all species have a fatal flaw that dooms them when they overpopulate. Maybe this is part of the system of the planet that helps it save itself…? Is it possible that the destruction of humans would be the best thing to ever happen to Earth? My parents and others more recently have said we already lost the culture wars. They say that majority of people do not care enough about our home planet or have the character to save it. They may be right, but I also believe in our better nature and would like to see it win out. Judging by our current leaders in Washington as the manifest zeitgeist of the collective, we are not doing very well so far.
I appreciate your comments David.
I only try to absorb as much as I can, but it is difficult. The hard drive is quite full as they say.
It takes a lot of time and effort to truly understand anything going on these days. With media sources mostly catering to divided and limited attention spans – and divided populations generating their own narrative-based facts, it is a wonder that anyone can really know what is really going on.
I have a difficult time focusing lately because there is so much going on, and there isn’t enough time in the day to understand it all. Yet, as much as I try to put on filters, the need to know answers persists. It is sad there has been only small fractions of the latest Presidential debates dedicated to what is going on with this planet – amongst a group of people where this is supposed to be a number one priority. That said, I would hate to be a politician – getting blasted from every direction on every issue, and relying on a staff that may or may not have fully researched information.
I wish I had a crystal ball to look millennia into the future to see what is written, if anything at all, about this time of the Anthropocene era of this planet.
True solution is to stop cutting down trees. ?
Indeed!
Problem with all of these kind of thoughts is that they just don’t translate to reality. Not that they are not possible, but that nobody has the will. I still use paper. Don’t you? The “environmentalists” who criticise mining, for example, still use just as many metal products as the rest of us. They all have light switches in their homes, batteries in their cars, etc.
The problem with this kind of thought is not that it is impossible, but we just don’t have the will or the practical plan for transition. I still use paper. Don’t you? Most “Environmentalists” who criticize and oppose mining, for example, use just as many metal products as anyone else. We all still drive cars made of metal, use batteries in those cars, have wiring and light switches in our homes and use devices to communicate about the latest thing we are “saving.”
Ultimately it is going to come down to global scale. It is possible to cut down trees in a balanced way, it is possible to mine without being so destructive. But with scale these operations are at to support an uncontrolled human population, it just isn’t working.
As human beings, I don’t believe we’re good long term planners by nature. Most people don’t have personal 1-year plans much less 5, 10 or 20-year plans. We can’t easily capture and remain focused on that large scope of time with its requirement for constant adjustment for changes and almost unlimited variables. Tree planting and growth are definitely long term projects and require a long term vision of environmental impacts and targets. And we certainly don’t currently have the political will or support at federal or most state levels at this time…local is also a mixed bag.
On the short term, it sadly seems to keep coming back to greed. There’s usually a quick investment turnaround in housing and commercial real estate which occupies land where there could be or was a forest. If any replacement trees are planted it’s often to keep the “environmental do-gooders” quiet. Now, if we can discover a way to make it highly profitable over a short investment period to plant trees I suspect we’d have trees everywhere in short order. Ironically, mankind’s short-sightedness will probably be it’s own short existence end.
Interesting and important post and subject, Mark, sorry to be such a “Debbie Downer.” ?
Well, welcome to the Debbie Downer club then, as I also find it hard to be optimistic. I know there are people that work very hard at tree planting initiatives, especially for vacant urban fields and other land that was cleared long ago. I just can’t get that picture of the bulldozer cartoon out of my head though. Thanks for your comments Earl.
Like you say, it is hard to argue with tree planting. But my first thought, as you imply, is that with worldwide deforestation the numbers are more likely to go down than up. Even with replacing a percentage of trees (and immature ones at that) the net is, unfortunately, negative. Saving what we have can’t be argued with. Well, unless you are a developer I guess. It’s a sad state
I do wonder if we have a current mentality with trees like we have had in the past with the oceans. That they are this vast resource we couldn’t possibly impact, and they are replaceable. The planet will gradually tell us when it’s had enough I think.