go green, do it, i dare you

[The Mad Monk]

What kinds of perennials or trees, though? Here in KC I have an asparagus patch that's doing well, but most of my trees are struggling or simply not producing. The best producers are my Nanking bush cherries which produced a total of 1.5 kg of fruit on 5 care-free shrubs.

[Dinner]

Is the heat effecting the fruit trees?

[Dinner]

It's a great distraction from the real solution.

The IPCC says you are wrong.

[Dinner]

https://www.carbonbrief.org/direct-co2-capture-machines-could-use-quarter-global-energy-in-2100/amp

Your land area figures seem grossly off as the IPCC says bio masd alone would require an area around five times the size of India according to most studies. Yes, we are going to need to increase bio mass but, no, we can't wait 100-200 years for that bio mass to grow even if it was all magically planted today and grew with 100% efficiency. As the IPCC said some sort of direct atmospheric capture of carbon is going to be needed.

It would still be great to green deserts though you'd be talking absolutely massive construction of desalination plants, delivery networks for both water and power, roadway construction, and the creation of massive artificial forests none of which would be cheap. There would be a bunch of positive ecological effects from that though no where near enough to pay for the development itself.

[Aeson]

What kinds of perennials or trees, though? Here in KC I have an asparagus patch that's doing well, but most of my trees are struggling or simply not producing. The best producers are my Nanking bush cherries which produced a total of 1.5 kg of fruit on 5 care-free shrubs.

What do you think is causing the trees to struggle?

I’m mostly familiar with tropical plants. Jerusalem artichoke should produce well there. Annuals aren’t necessarily a bad thing, just need to be part of a sustainable sytem.

If you can find a permaculture farm in the area they’d be able to point you to plants best adapted to your area.

[Aeson]

https://www.carbonbrief.org/direct-c...gy-in-2100/amp

Your land area figures seem grossly off as the IPCC says bio masd alone would require an area around five times the size of India according to most studies. Yes, we are going to need to increase bio mass but, no, we can't wait 100-200 years for that bio mass to grow even if it was all magically planted today and grew with 100% efficiency. As the IPCC said some sort of direct atmospheric capture of carbon is going to be needed.

It would still be great to green deserts though you'd be talking absolutely massive construction of desalination plants, delivery networks for both water and power, roadway construction, and the creation of massive artificial forests none of which would be cheap. There would be a bunch of positive ecological effects from that though no where near enough to pay for the development itself.

The study they linked to said:

Furthermore, some prominent land based mitigation options such as soil carbon managementwith an economic potential estimated at 3.5 GtCO2eq per year by 2030 (Smith et al., 2013) are not included in this assessment.

The study is more about predicting where the current system is going, rather than what is possible via other systems.

[Aeson]

It doesn’t take hundreds of years. Old growth forests tend to be near equilibrium in carbon flux, the net sequestration happens in new growth.

Planting at high density and culling over time allows for for maximum photosynthetic activity (and thus rate of carbon sequestration) to be reached quickly. Complete canopy can be achieved in 6 months to 2 years.

Fast growing tree species can reach max living biomass in an area in 20 years at commercial planting density in monocrops. The 200 metric tonnes per hectare is a number that doesn’t include much if any soil carbon, as natural tropical systems tend to have low soil carbon. Higher density and polyculture with soil carbon management can do better.

5 billion hectares of food forest is what we need.

[Aeson]

The IPCC says you are wrong.

The IPCC and study you linked to both do not address what I’ve said. The study in the OP is the closest academia has gotten, and they only go 900 million hectares, rather than 5 billion. On an effect by unit of area they agree with my assessment. They just need to realize we can feed people with the same system to allow use of agricultural lands.

[The Mad Monk]

What do you think is causing the trees to struggle?

I’m mostly familiar with tropical plants. Jerusalem artichoke should produce well there. Annuals aren’t necessarily a bad thing, just need to be part of a sustainable sytem.

If you can find a permaculture farm in the area they’d be able to point you to plants best adapted to your area.

Probably because the soil is heavy clay that doesn't respond well to amendments; possibly because temperature and precipitation swings are something else; likely because I'm an idiot.

Tomatoes do great, sugar snap peas do great, sweet potatoes do great, up until the past two years my non-nanking cherries dropped all their leaves midsummer and produce 100g tart cherries per tree on the trees that do produce, three plum trees look healthy but only one bears, then that one aborts everything in june, mulberry trees plant themselves all over the damn place and drop fruit everywhere (too bad i am not overly fond of mulberries), potatoes die halfway through and maybe produce a pound or two of potatoes per plant, gave up on corn years ago, squash does great if I can keep up the daily squash bug checks, overwise die early and often, apple trees are hopeless, oh god I'm rambling aren't I?

[The Mad Monk]

I will look into local permaculture, thanks.

[Dinner]

The study they linked to said:

Furthermore, some prominent land based mitigation options such as soil carbon managementwith an economic potential estimated at 3.5 GtCO2eq per year by 2030 (Smith et al., 2013) are not included in this assessment.

The study is more about predicting where the current system is going, rather than what is possible via other systems.

It says most clearly that atmospheroc carbon removal will be necessary.

[Dinner]

What do you think is causing the trees to struggle?

I’m mostly familiar with tropical plants. Jerusalem artichoke should produce well there. Annuals aren’t necessarily a bad thing, just need to be part of a sustainable sytem.

If you can find a permaculture farm in the area they’d be able to point you to plants best adapted to your area.

The short lifed plants are necessarially sequestering carbon. They break down quite quickly.

[Dinner]

I will look into local permaculture, thanks.

Food forests are good but most permaculture doesn't a tually sequester carbon. That is where he goes wrong.

[Dinner]

Again the IPCC says you are wrong.

[Aeson]

Food forests are good but most permaculture doesn't a tually sequester carbon. That is where he goes wrong.

Trees only sequester carbon if they aren’t called permaculture?