Ship of Fools: I like trees.

Thread: I like trees. Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020445

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

Apart from their aesthetic beauty, they provide the basis of many sustainable industries, as well as stabilising soil and contributing to its fertility and structure. But the fact is, you are going to need to plant a whole lot (many, many thousands of square miles) of trees to fix the CO2 we are releasing by burning fossil fuels. But, as I said, I like trees, and the more trees there are, the better, to my way of thinking.

But according to my reading reducing CO2 in the atmosphere may not even be the most effective way of stopping global warming. For every single CO2 molecule fixed, it would be better by 25 times to fix a methane molecule, by 2000 times to fix a NOx molecule, by 5600 times to fix a CFC molecule, and by 25000 times to fix tropospheric ozone (O3). As I understand it, a main contribututor to NOx and tropospheric O3 is aircraft travel.

Only problem is, I don't know of a natural, organic method for fixing NOx, CFCs, and O3. Nor do I know of a paper discussing this issue.

So, it seems that if we are really to combat climate change, we need to attack the sources of this most damaging pollution, rather than solving it after the event. If that means banning the private ownership of jet planes, and rationing the public use of airline jet planes to, say, a few return flights per year, well, I'm prepared to countenance that.

Best wishes, 2RM

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

While a single molecule of NOx is indeed many times more troublesome than one of CO2, the point is that there is a lot more CO2 released than NOx. We still achieve the most by reducing CO2, because it's released in vastly larger quantities than these other pollutants.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
While a single molecule of NOx is indeed many times more troublesome than one of CO2, the point is that there is a lot more CO2 released than NOx. We still achieve the most by reducing CO2, because it's released in vastly larger quantities than these other pollutants.

Interesting. Do you have figures?

Thanks, and best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

Oh, and by the way, everyone, if you are wondering what on earth this politically charged issue has to do with God, it's this. It is matter of a stewardship of, rather than domination over, God's creation and providence.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Actually it is more complicated than you mention. Trees take up carbon as they grow and store it in a range of ways. Some of these are hard to biodegrade.

But if you want a net reduction of the carbon in the atmosphere, you need to find ways to use the wood that releases it more slowly than it was taken up - it is no good just growing trees, you then have to harvest them and protect the carbon from being released to the atmosphere.

The main ways to do this are a) using wood in a lot more things that are going to last a very long time b) deep burial/submersion of the wood in such a way that it breaks down very very slowly.

One can also consider charcoaling - which is the process of cooking the wood in such a way as to make the carbon-rich residue extremely difficult to be biologically broken down to release the carbon. The downside is that one has to then find things to do with the charcoal that don't involve burning it.

There are about 890 million tonnes of carbon in trees in the UK. Anthropogenic CO2 production is about 40 billion tonnes a year. Multiplied by 3/11 gives about 10 billion tonnes of carbon. Which is more than 10 times more carbon than we have in all the trees in the UK. In a year.

And it is no good even planting a load of trees now because it would take many years to replicate what the UK has in trees, because many/most of our trees are fairly old (and young trees don't take up much carbon every year).

In contrast British soils contain 2.4 billion tonnes of carbon, with much in "long-term" storage pools - and have potential to increase the amount relatively easily and quickly.

Conclusion: we'd be better trying to increase carbon in British soils than focussing too much on wood.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
While a single molecule of NOx is indeed many times more troublesome than one of CO2, the point is that there is a lot more CO2 released than NOx. We still achieve the most by reducing CO2, because it's released in vastly larger quantities than these other pollutants.
Interesting. Do you have figures?

Thanks, and best wishes, 2RM.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Interesting. Do you have figures?

Thanks, and best wishes, 2RM.

Yes - wikipedia is your friend.

CO2 is nearly 400 parts per million (ppm is 10^-6)
Methane is about 1000 parts per billion (ppb is 10^-9)

So 1 part per million is a thousand times more concentrated than 1 part per billion. So C02 is about 400 times more contracted than methane.

[ 21. January 2018, 15:54: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Other sources suggest methane produces 21 times the warming of the equivalent amount of CO2, and thus accounts for about 20% of the greenhouse effect.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

Thanks for those. It's was all useful, and I take it on board. I would just like to say, though, that I am not confining myself to a purely British perspective, but considering the global situation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 21. January 2018, 16:06: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So C02 is about 400 times more contracted than methane.

Concentrated even. I found another source that says atmospheric methane is about 0.5% that of CO2. Which is different, I'm not sure why, but of a similar magnitude.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Thanks for those. It's was all useful, and I take it on board. I would just like to say, though, that I am not confining myself to a purely British perspective, but considering the global situation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

On a world scale it makes even more sense to consider soils as carbon sinks more than wood.

Of course it would also help if there was more protection of global soils so carbon losses were lower and their contribution to the problem was less.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Trees are lovely, but we should also talk oceans and the phytoplankton which takes in C0₂.

We might also make it very expensive to drive a car.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, it seems that if we are really to combat climate change, we need to attack the sources of this most damaging pollution, rather than solving it after the event.

Which is blindingly obvious. If we're talking carbon capture and storage then the commonly talked about solution is geological - with all the issues about finding reservoirs where vast quantities of CO2 can be stored for geological time scales (so as not to present a source of CO2 to further screw up the atmosphere we leave to our grandchildren or even their grandchildren). As in many things, nature ha already solved that problem - we call it coal, oil and gas. Rather than figure out how to get carbon back underground, much simpler to leave it there in the first place.

But, unfortunately, our political "leaders" have been so busy following the business interests of oil companies that they are blind to the obvious. And, now we're 30 years behind where we could have been, with the problem grown bigger and less manageable.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
But, as I said, I like trees, and the more trees there are, the better, to my way of thinking.

Interesting. What steps are you, personally, taking, consistently with your love of trees, your desire to see fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and your concern for appropriate stewardship of the resources of creation?

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

But if you want a net reduction of the carbon in the atmosphere, you need to find ways to use the wood that releases it more slowly than it was taken up - it is no good just growing trees, you then have to harvest them and protect the carbon from being released to the atmosphere.

The main ways to do this are a) using wood in a lot more things that are going to last a very long time...

I particularly like this approach. The idea of the long term persistence of the products we use, in the current throwaway climate, is the very antithesis of capitalist consumerism. Yet, it is clearly so much more wise. Societies would build wealth, from generation to generation, rather than simply disposing of it in landfill or the oceans.

When Ronald MacDonald advocates his burgers not just because they are cheap, but also because they are nutritious and their containers can be reused around the house indefinitely, then I think the green movement will have made a significant advance, and with it, humanity.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
But, as I said, I like trees, and the more trees there are, the better, to my way of thinking.
Interesting. What steps are you, personally, taking, consistently with your love of trees, your desire to see fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and your concern for appropriate stewardship of the resources of creation?

I'm not even going to go there. Last time I stated my personal situation, I was castigated for being a self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou pharisee that made others 'want to puke'. And the thread was prematurely closed by the moderators.

Just be assured that I do what I can, as I can, when I can.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Interesting. What steps are you, personally, taking, consistently with your love of trees, your desire to see fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and your concern for appropriate stewardship of the resources of creation?

I'm personally contemplating buying woodland.

But I do fail to see why the individual action is really important to this debate.

Surely one could argue that developing a political idea to influence government policy on trees and/or soil is important. Surely one could argue that trying (in whatever way) to get corporations use more wood is important.

And so on.

Can we not have a discussion about the merits of national/international environmental activities without seeking to delegitimise a questioner by attempting to imply that a) they are just mouthing off and/or not planning to do anything significant or b) that the discussion of activities in the abstract is unimportant if we don't show each other worked-out plans for future individual activities.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I'm not even going to go there. Last time I stated my personal situation (...) Just be assured that I do what I can, as I can, when I can.

That sounds like a cop-out to me. If you're not willing to offer your own practice up for debate, I don't see why anyone should bother having to listen to your pontifications on it. Or are you expecting everyone else's response to this pressing problem to be theoretical rather than actual, too?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I like trees.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I do fail to see why the individual action is really important to this debate. Surely one could argue that developing a political idea to influence government policy on trees and/or soil is important.

If all that involves is pointing at other people and saying "they really should do this", then I don't think it's going to become politically viable any time soon. You have to argue the case, cite your sources, and demonstrate when challenged what you are doing towards implementing your case; or so it seems to me.

Otherwise I'm inevitably reminded of the pompous guy I know who can wax on endlessly about global warming and proceed to make every single significant journey by plane without missing a single beat; in his view, I think global warming is something the plebs have to change their behaviours for.

[ 21. January 2018, 17:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If all that involves is pointing at other people and saying "they really should do this", then I don't think it's going to become politically viable any time soon.

I don't know about France, but much of British forestry is in public ownership. Much of the rest is supported by national/EU grants. It is entirely legitimate to contemplate how government policy can be changed to encourage behaviour.

Give that few own woodland, it is a diversion to insist that someone can only ask the question about woodland management if they do.

quote:

You have to argue the case, cite your sources, and demonstrate when challenged what you are doing towards implementing your case; or so it seems to me.

Bullshit.

quote:

Otherwise I'm inevitably reminded of the pompous guy I know who can wax on endlessly about global warming and proceed to make every single significant journey by plane without missing a single beat; in his view, I think global warming is something the plebs have to change their behaviours for.

There is a lot of pomposity to go around then.

[ 21. January 2018, 17:24: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I'm not even going to go there. Last time I stated my personal situation (...) Just be assured that I do what I can, as I can, when I can.
That sounds like a cop-out to me. If you're not willing to offer your own practice up for debate, I don't see why anyone should bother having to listen to your pontifications on it. Or are you expecting everyone else's response to this pressing problem to be theoretical rather than actual, too?

Hmmm. So, I am not sure whether a challenge at me, is a challenge against a clean, green world. If you are suggesting I am a hypocrite, then even a hypocrite can make pertinent observations and put forward valid and sound arguments. So that doesn't stand up.

But I am not such a hypocrite: I commit to you now, with the entire forum as witness, that I will never own a private jet.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 21. January 2018, 17:37: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

One of the policies of the new Government in NZ is to plant 100 million trees in the next 10 years.

This group has my backing because they are focussing on planting native trees which will also support endangered native birds, and encourage others back into areas they previously frequented.

In my view one of the positive changes in rebuilding Christchurch since the quakes has been a focus on native plantings.

Huia

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is entirely legitimate to contemplate how government policy can be changed to encourage behaviour.

Give that few own woodland, it is a diversion to insist that someone can only ask the question about woodland management if they do.

I'm not expecting anybody to own woodland. But if they think it's a good idea, links to some existing policies and suggestions of how others could get involved would be welcome. Otherwise it all remains terribly vague.

[x-post with Huia, who clearly reads my mind]

[ 21. January 2018, 18:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
But I am not such a hypocrite: I commit to you now, with the entire forum as witness, that I will never own a private jet.

You said

quote:
It is matter of a stewardship of, rather than domination over, God's creation and providence.

Stewardship might include state policies, but as far as I can see it starts at home. You chose to add a theological angle to the discussion, so unless you think stewardship of creation only applies to everybody else, I think it's reasonable to ask you how you think it applies to you.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Our Government has this plan but seems to have forgotten about this (not the path but the surrounding landscape which is Peat bog and right in the target area.

Firstly Peat bog is more efficient than forest as a carbon sink. Secondly I am not sure how easy it is to grow trees on peat and suspect they would have to degrade the bogs to achieve that end.

[brick wall]

Jengie

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Stewardship might include state policies, but as far as I can see it starts at home.

As far as I can see that's exactly the wrong place to start the discussion, otherwise we get bogged down with willy-wavers and naysayers.

The fact is that this is a global behavioral issue requiring corporate national and international changes. Asking any individual what they are going to do is the cop-out because it ignores the magnitude of the problem.

Those who gather at the IPCC don't first discuss what they personally are doing about stuff. Abstract discussions about massive problems are perfectly acceptable when the difference any one individual could make are negligible.

quote:

You chose to add a theological angle to the discussion, so unless you think stewardship of creation only applies to everybody else, I think it's reasonable to ask you how you think it applies to you.

Theology can't be abstract?!

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

It's difficult to compare personal circumstances though. When I bought my house I chose somewhere on a busy bus route, which means I can take a bus, walk or cycle most places, so my personal choice is facilitated by the infrastructure of the small city where I live. Also Christchurch is relatively flat. I know of families who have decided that their main form of transport will be cycling. If they lived in another city this might be more difficult.

I have family living in another city. If I fly up to see them it only takes 45 minutes at worst, and I don't travel internationally. Thus my circumstances, and my personal limitations mean that it is easier for me to sound virtuous about use of fossil fuels.

My downfall is eating out of season imported fruit.

Huia

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Theology can't be abstract?!

Theology naturally includes abstract components, but my contention is that Christianity is all about attempting to draw a straight line between the abstract and the personally incarnational.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I like trees.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Our Government has this plan but seems to have forgotten about this (not the path but the surrounding landscape which is Peat bog and right in the target area.

The article was vague on where to plant the new woodlands. But, planting on upland areas which have been devoid of trees for millenia makes very little sense - by nature they aren't areas where trees grow easily (there's a reason why there haven't been trees up there), and as you say peat bogs are already doing most of what new woodland would do (water flow management, carbon capture, wildlife havens - if not overly managed by draining). Throughout the country there are vast tracts of land where people have cleared forests in the last few centuries, reforesting those areas ahead of putting forests in areas they wouldn't naturally be.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

A tenner a tree for a hundred square miles over 25 years. As a 1% start nearly OK. At that rate it'll take 2,500 years to have halfway decent hardwood forest.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

What are people's opinions on carbon offsets? Is it a middle-class tax to make me think I've paid my dues while I sit in cattle class and journey across the oceans?

I guess every business implements it differently... But I always feel it is doing something. But perhaps a holiday closer to home is better. Or a Skype for business, not that I am in that league of corporate travel.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Carbon offsets from trees are not very good. They're not permanent, they don't slow actual use of fossil fuels, and they may not be actually new. They also take a long time to have an impact, i.e., the plant has to grow. New in the sense that they have added something to overall emissions reductions.

If the tree already exists, or would have been planted anyway, it doesn't contribute in a real way to offsetting your emissions. If the project to reduce CO₂ is new, then it is actually contributing. They call this "additionality".

We'd probably need two things. First carbon offsets which are new projects. Second, carbon offsets which discourage use of fossil fuels and change behaviour, both of society en mass and economic behaviour. Which is why I'm all for metering cars and other transport, and having people pay per km or mile travelled (needs to be enough that people question driving), and also pay for their road use, the construction of which is greenhouse gas heavy.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

And the thread was prematurely closed by the moderators.

If you wish to query or complain about any Hosts' ruling, you may post that query or complaint in the Styx. But not in Purgatory.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ 21. January 2018, 20:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's all bollocks. We consume too much. Recycling, and that's what carbon capture is, cannot address that. Ever. I doubt even mandatory green energy can address that. But it's a start. It's expensive. It means we have to be more efficient, frugal. How are we going to stop India and Africa - China was NOTHING - burning coal?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Our Government has this plan but seems to have forgotten about this (not the path but the surrounding landscape which is Peat bog and right in the target area.
The article was vague on where to plant the new woodlands. But, planting on upland areas which have been devoid of trees for millenia makes very little sense - by nature they aren't areas where trees grow easily (there's a reason why there haven't been trees up there), and as you say peat bogs are already doing most of what new woodland would do (water flow management, carbon capture, wildlife havens - if not overly managed by draining). Throughout the country there are vast tracts of land where people have cleared forests in the last few centuries, reforesting those areas ahead of putting forests in areas they wouldn't naturally be.

I thought the reason upland areas were devoid of trees tended to the be woolly, antlered and/or long eared inhabitants rather than natural impediments (the natural tree line being way above most British uplands).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
What are people's opinions on carbon offsets?

Generally of variable usefulness. In theory, carbon offsetting should remove an equivalent quantity of greenhouse gases as generated by the activity. Though even in the best cases there's always a time lag between the production of greenhouse gases and their removal - paying for energy efficiency, low carbon power stations, planting trees etc will have a time scale over which greenhouses gases are removed/production reduced. That's a time lag over which your greenhouse gas production is doing damage.

Of course, better than nothing. But, especially as a voluntary extra that is a small cost (typically less than 10% of the cost of flight) it's basically a salve on a middle-class lifestyle, make us feel better about our consumer lifestyle.

A genuine tax, that all pay, which pays for investment in reducing greenhouse gas production or removal of greenhouse gases, based on sensible and conservative estimates (so, not best case scenarios or even most likely). And, have the tax also pay for significant mitigation of past and ongoing greenhouse gas production. Something that significantly impacts costs of producing greenhouse gases. That might have an impact.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I thought the reason upland areas were devoid of trees tended to the be woolly, antlered and/or long eared inhabitants rather than natural impediments (the natural tree line being way above most British uplands).

It depends on the upland area. Peat bogs are areas which were once wooded, but the trees died back as a result of natural climate change that resulted in saturated organic rich nutrient poor soils - there are very few trees that will grow in that sort of environment. Peat bogs have been managed to make them more suitable for sheep and deer - but that's been achieved by draining rather than cutting down the trees.

Other areas, where peat bogs didn't dominate would have been heavily forested and have either been cleared or grazing pressure has stopped natural regeneration.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's intriguing Alan. About the bogs. Can you recommend a work?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
... So, it seems that if we are really to combat climate change, we need to attack the sources of this most damaging pollution, rather than solving it after the event. If that means banning the private ownership of jet planes, and rationing the public use of airline jet planes to, say, a few return flights per year, well, I'm prepared to countenance that. ...

Do you really have enough faith in the ability of those who gain the amount of political power they would need to do that, to resist the temptations that go with it, to trust either governments or international organisations to do it honourably and justly?

I certainly don't.

[ 21. January 2018, 21:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I like native trees. I dislike Cyprus trees. In my area, European settlers planted rows of Cyprus in or about 1850 to act as windbreaks and perhaps also to remind them of old England. When our most recent drought broke and saturated the soil quite a number of these large trees became unstable. Two fell slowly onto our house, causing minor damage, and one slowly crushed one of our tin sheds. While insurance covered those ones, we decided it was safer to remove the stand, costing a gi-normous amount of cash. Now there are native bushes and small trees along that boundary.

Yesterday, I was at a place with a lovely view across Westernport Bay to Philip Island. There were plantation pines in the immediate distance and copses of natives in the background. I know which trees I found more appealing.

I vote for the climate, but I still grumble when I have to change my behavior. There is NO WAY I would pay a voluntary climate offset surcharge. Climate isn't my heartfelt issue, if you know what I mean, but I will grumpily co-operate with those who have that heart. Just as long as they support me with my heartfelt issues...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That'll be Cupressus sempervirens the Mediterranean, Italian, Tuscan or Persian cypress or pencil pine? Not a UK tree, though it gets by.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's intriguing Alan. About the bogs. Can you recommend a work?

I'm sure someone has written a good book on the history and ecology of peat bogs, I just don't know one. I've picked up bits and pieces from TV documentaries and some stuff I've done at work (including other people talking about their work).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK, I had a brief look yesterday. I think Alan is correct, but only in a kind-of way.

I understand that the peat-bogs developed since the last ice-age. I've read various explanations, but the changing climate seem plausible.

On the other hand, they are said to be an ecological climax community - so you start with a lake and boggy ground and over time different species live there - changing the conditions - until eventually we get the peat bog.

It has taken a long long time to get the peaty bogs that we have and they contain a lot of carbon which is threatened to be released when they dry out. We want to keep the peat as it is if at all possible, planting trees in them would be a disaster.

Now the next thing to say is that our Northern European flora has only existed since the last ice age. So the things that we consider "native" are not those trees that existed before the last ice age. We are not now adapted to those conditions, so aspiring to reforest the peat would destroy some of the rarest habitats and native species.

And fwiw, the concept of "wild wood" - considered one of the rarest habitats we have in the UK are only 500 years old.

Conclusion: more trees would be good, but don't rip up the bogs to plant them.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

We like trees - one of the reasons we live in the part of Sydney where we do. They purify the air, provide shade, and also shelter a lot of wildlife. Mostly natives, but also exotic trees and shrubs are part of our daily life.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Gee D - am I right in thinking that a lot of your native trees are essentially explosive?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Thank you Alan.

I need to read MUCH more on this. I remember the furore of peat extraction, I don't know if that's improved. I doubt it since this in 2004. I recall it did have an impact on source management.

I'll see if I can research these chaps.

In fact your key words 'history and ecology of peat bogs' yield much.

I fantasize about a hundred thousand square miles of forest from Cornwall, Wales, Shrophire, the Pennines et al, Scotland. Vast perichoretic gyres of natives, especially the endemic whitebeams. I'd allow the currently introduced and naturalized, fiercely managed. Fifty BILLION trees. Easy.

In the next life, just give me a Baxter-Pratchett Long Earth, bifurcating from this one now. Empty. That'll keep me off SOF for a while.

[ 22. January 2018, 09:46: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Simontoad, are they like this?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Gee D - am I right in thinking that a lot of your native trees are essentially explosive?

Yes and no. In the event of a powerful fire, eucalypts will burst into flame from the inflammable vapour given by the leaves. But not really explode like a bomb save in the very fiercest of fires.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's intriguing Alan. About the bogs. Can you recommend a work?

Matthew Kelly: Quartz and Feldspar; Dartmoor, a History of a Landscape in Modern Times.

Deals with both natural peat bogs and man made clearances.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Simontoad, are they like this?

sort of. Hard to tell with van cough. I call them pine trees but my tree bloke reckoned they were cypresses.

I reckon the bottom two pictures on this website show the type of trees I'm talking about, well pruned.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's intriguing Alan. About the bogs. Can you recommend a work?
Matthew Kelly: Quartz and Feldspar; Dartmoor, a History of a Landscape in Modern Times.

Deals with both natural peat bogs and man made clearances.

Probably worth adding that when it says "Modern", that just about includes geologically!

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The article was vague on where to plant the new woodlands. But, planting on upland areas which have been devoid of trees for millenia makes very little sense - by nature they aren't areas where trees grow easily (there's a reason why there haven't been trees up there), and as you say peat bogs are already doing most of what new woodland would do (water flow management, carbon capture, wildlife havens - if not overly managed by draining). Throughout the country there are vast tracts of land where people have cleared forests in the last few centuries, reforesting those areas ahead of putting forests in areas they wouldn't naturally be.

The problem is that any sensible route between Hull and Liverpool has to go through peat-bog; especially if it is supposed to go between Leeds and Sheffield. You can check on this map.

Jengie

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The article was vague on where to plant the new woodlands. But, planting on upland areas which have been devoid of trees for millenia makes very little sense - by nature they aren't areas where trees grow easily (there's a reason why there haven't been trees up there), and as you say peat bogs are already doing most of what new woodland would do (water flow management, carbon capture, wildlife havens - if not overly managed by draining). Throughout the country there are vast tracts of land where people have cleared forests in the last few centuries, reforesting those areas ahead of putting forests in areas they wouldn't naturally be.
The problem is that any sensible route between Hull and Liverpool has to go through peat-bog; especially if it is supposed to go between Leeds and Sheffield. You can check on this map.

Jengie

There's also the fact that the plan isn't quite what has been trailed - there is no ambition to enforest the whole area, so much as to forest what they can - there will still be farmland, towns, peat bogs etc. Unfortunately, it has been reported (and quite possibly briefed by the govt, who knows?) as "we're going to envelop the M62 in forest.

Much like the mediaeval Sherwood Forest, a lot of it is going to be state of mind rather than actual trees. Having said that, that's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

[ 22. January 2018, 13:38: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@betjemaniac, excellent, thanks.

@simontoad, most probably Mediterranean cypress then, pruned from the bottom up. What's your rainfall like? Chamaecyparis lawsoniana is another strong possibility, cultivated in the UK since 1854. Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey) is grown as an Oz farm windbreak, I doubt it's C. nootkatensis or their hybrid offspring C. × leylandii.

Close-ups of leaves and male and female cones would be good!

[ 22. January 2018, 14:15: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Now, now, Martin - behave!

[Razz]

I like trees, though I don't possess one myself. At Our Place, we have five mature trees (two London Planes, and three Limes), all of which need attention (pollarding, pruning etc.) to keep them from annoying the neighbours by dropping leaves, twigs, bird poo etc., onto the said neighbours' cars.

The work is going to cost the PCC a fair bit of £££ (and needs to be done more frequently than has been the case in the past). If only we could just let the trees behave naturally, but in a built-up, residential, area, this isn't really on.

Perhaps (linking this thread with the OPer's earlier, now closed, thread), we should cut all spending on frivolities like sport, culture, the arts, entertainment etc., and concentrate the money on reforesting as much of the country as possible.

Jobs lost on one side might be compensated by jobs gained in the forestry industry, IYSWIM.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I doubt it's C. nootkatensis or their hybrid offspring C. × leylandii.

Leyland cypresses have alas taken over in the metropolitan area not so much as a windbreak but as tall hedges grown for 3 purposes - to give privacy , to block neighbours' views and to show that you can afford to have them trimmed quarterly. At least in this area of Sydney, the traditional sasanqua camellia hedge still plays its part, but that's only in older houses. The leylands seem compulsory in new ones. Leylands grow very rapidly, camellias much more slowly.

[ 22. January 2018, 19:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Oh, and by the way, everyone, if you are wondering what on earth this politically charged issue has to do with God, it's this. It is matter of a stewardship of, rather than domination over, God's creation and providence.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And if you think every thread on the message board of The Magazine of Christian Unrest has to be defended as God related, you are mistaken. It's perfectly fine to start a discussion on aspects of climate change here without reference to God or religion. But if you want to include stewardship in the mix, that is also fine.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I doubt it's C. nootkatensis or their hybrid offspring C. × leylandii.
Leyland cypresses have alas taken over in the metropolitan area not so much as a windbreak but as tall hedges grown for 3 purposes - to give privacy , to block neighbours' views and to show that you can afford to have them trimmed quarterly. At least in this area of Sydney, the traditional sasanqua camellia hedge still plays its part, but that's only in older houses. The leylands seem compulsory in new ones. Leylands grow very rapidly, camellias much more slowly.

Melbourne's a tad cooler but much drier than Sydney? Half the rain? So Leylands are less likely in M.? Or more prone to canker? I dunno, it thrives on Mount Kenya. But dies in 10 years in California, a bit longer in Alabama.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Now, now, Martin - behave!

I wish I looked like the drummer and sung like
Bill Withers

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Now, now, Martin - behave!

I wish I looked like the drummer and sung like
Bill Withers

The rain here varies from year to year, depending on whether we have an el nino or la nina. We are in a wet year. Here is a page about our weather. I can't make head nor tail of it.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Try living in Ukland - we have the most talked-about, and misunderstood, weather in the world!

Seriously, visitors from Foreign Parts are often gobsmacked at the sheer variety of weather they might experience in the course of a few days in (say) London.

Re trees, the bl**dy Leylandii (what is the correct singular?), often bought as a cute little thingy, about a foot high, in a pot, but later topping 20 feet or more, is an Abomination Unto The Lord.

So much so, that it has made me insert six commas into one sentence.... [Paranoid]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Martin60, The fashion's been around for 20 years or more, but there's no sign of hedges of leylands dying, alas.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Pity, Sydney's to wet and warm!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Shoot me in the face someone, TOO!

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The only time the inhabitants of this Country really respected and nurtured large deciduous trees was when Oak became vital for ship building.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Back in 1990 I stayed with Mary, a cousin of mine in Billericay, Essex. While watching the news one night, I asked her husband Lionel which way the weather generally went. "You're not telling me the weather goes in one direction in Australia are you? It comes from everywhere here." I also embarrassed myself while out with him, pointing to a Tudor building, and saying, "I hate mock Tudor."

Lionel is long gone, but last I heard Mary was alive and well. [Votive]

Their son died very young, leaving a wife and two young children. [Votive]

[ 28. January 2018, 11:29: Message edited by: simontoad ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There are such things as prevailing winds. In Britain NEasters match SWesters - a third apiece - in the spring from when SW increases for 9 months to 50% and NE decreases to 20%.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

With the weather we are generally getting now? This area could be the Oak Capital of the world.
This is of course only possible if we break our obsession with post war agricultural policy and grazing animals.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There are such things as prevailing winds. In Britain NEasters match SWesters - a third apiece - in the spring from when SW increases for 9 months to 50% and NE decreases to 20%.

Poor old Lionel. I would forgive him anything.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0