Ghana plants 5 million trees in a single day to combat deforestation
By - krishna531
>The government plans for Green Ghana Day to become an annual event, with an ambitious goal of expanding the day's planting target from 5 million to 100 million trees by 2024.
I hope they can do it. This is awesome.
I hope there is some thought into actually making them live. I keep reading this is done in a stupid way and most of the trees die
Do you have any specific articles in mind on the dying off part
Edit: Thank you for the articles!
ill do some digging. ive seen a lot of posts on reddit that go on to state in essence that the plans are not designed in an intelligent manner and thus the trees die off. the spirit of the idea is good, but the actual plan is poor.
Here's an article about reforestation that I found: [link](https://theconversation.com/greening-the-planet-we-cant-just-plant-trees-we-have-to-restore-forests-156910)
_...But reforestation occurs over hundreds of years and poorly managed projects that plant millions of trees can sometimes end with the majority dying.
That is why successful forest restoration projects take a long-term approach, through comparing progress to existing forests, taking “before and after” snapshots, and measuring the social cost and benefits. But none of this can be captured by counting trees. A tree census will not tell you about the health of the ecosystem, soil, insect, bird or mammal populations.._
I think one of the primary sources I'm thinking of is https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/eaay7976 and stories like https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/most-of-11m-trees-planted-in-turkish-project-may-be-dead
Yeahhhh, the report on Turkish success correctly calls bullshit. The most successful planting method is aerial seeding where they drop millions of seeds and the trees compete against eachother to cover an area. The seeds dont always grow properly and they suck at propogating through slash and duff and they dont take root as efficiently as properly planted seedlings. So even in areas where they were aerial seeded planters go in to put healthy seedlings in healthy spots except in proximity to “naturals” which are trees that are over a certain height and assumed to be healthy. Many times in great growing areas a natural 3 feet tall is 6 years old and is scraggly with obvious trunk issues.
The idea of sending out a crowd of untrained people to plant trees en masse is a joke. The quality of the trees is going to be horrible. A tree needs to be planted properly to grow properly. Planting a tree in dead plant matter isnt enough, it needs to be in soil or material degraded enough that it is permeable to oxygen and water, has nutrients and wont poison the roots with chemicals (like salt or ashes), isnt prone to flooding or drying (hard packed clay and swamp) etc. Trees are picky and their health depends on where they start their life. The environment also plays a role in whether the site is plantable as the climate may change the conditions quickly.
1 short group exercise will not educate people to properly plant a tree. Multiple one on one sessions will not train people to properly plant trees. Three months of living in a planting camp and personal training will not properly train some people to plant a good tree.
Im no scientist. I planted trees, I was never a tree slut either. I was chosen randomly to be overseen by the govt auditors several times a year.
If i was a regulator id crack down on carbon credits. As an economist id look at duplicate carbon credit sales. If i was a reforestation client (required by law to replant an area to govt specs) id look closer at handling. If i was a camp supervisor id look at the actual coverage of plantable land (a boundary check with remarking). As a crew boss id argue for more control over outline what is plantable vs unplantable land is (duff mountain, rock swamp, dry red rot, etc). All of these issues take away from profitability but improve safety, production and microsite quality. All important issues to everybody’s bottom line.
My raised issues also agree with your issue from the study about sequestration. The study would have been better pointed at soil sequestration over time and tree usage. I had to roll my eyes at boreal forests being omitted from climate change mitigation statistics from your link.
The scientists who arent being paid to release and approve bullshit should be looking into topsoil farming.
really great post, thanks for sharing.
I especially found it interesting that you felt the need to reassure us that
> I was never a tree slut either
Haha, i was debating whether to leave that in or to edit it slightly. Since you mentioned it im happy to explain myself!
A tree slut to me was a person who ‘“creamed” out their land’ usually planting in higher density than allowed and having a lower density than allowed in shittier areas. Also planting the good areas first and ignoring the rules of good land management in the expectation that others might be assigned to their piece later in the week.
I’m probably making myself out to sound like a messiah but i literally used drop sticks to flag off large creamy areas where I aimed to be able quickly finish my pieces but regularly saved to donate to rookies instead so they wouldnt fuck up my quality numbers if they were to enter the schnarby areas of my land.
Good land meant mostly flat areas where the microsites were plentiful and the soil was easy to access. Areas where it was hard not to plant a good tree fast. It was painful to watch a rookie get frustrated in good land but it was a million times better than being told to return to locate and replant bad plots planted by said rookies.
Where I’m from, we call that a “Land Virginny”
The idea of thrusting our blades in and out of the soil deeply and quickly never escaped us. When we talked about checking to see if the land would accept our blade and having it open into moist and slippery mineral soil we were always happy to deeply insert our seedlings. Our seedlings were always planted deep and the future health was exhibited by the seedlings standing tall and as obvious as a big pair of pink bulging balls. The ground was always tight as we left, the two finger test was to see if the seedlings would budge if rubbed up the stem which it wouldn’t do if done right the first time.
Re-Edit really derped up my last messaged: Im sorry about the two finger test comment but it is exactly what it is called and performed. A person checks for gaps in the hole made around the seedling to ensure there is no air gap that will potentially lead to mold formation. They check for the tightness of the hole by using pinching the stem of the seedling between two fingers, not between the thumb and a finger, the index and middle finger, and tugging upwards and pushing down to check for movement. If it moves easily then there was very likely an air gap beneath the soil which will lead to the seedling being ejected from the soil during frost of heavy rain and if unchecked may lead to mold formation from an air pocket. The other test is grabbing three needles close to the stem and pushing down and plucking sharply upwards and if there is movement the tree is loose, if the needles come off then the tree is tight, a faulty method if the needles were dead. The superior method is to lightly grasp the base of stem with and jerk it up and down very gently in a few directions. If properly planted it will always move a little bit and the soil above the plug can be inspected for quality and a finger can be insterted to check for air with an accompanying shovel the depth can be checked as well to ensure the pod wasn't L or J rooted. If the soil doesn't move the soil was packed too tight.
You tree planters are some of the toughest workers out there. I don’t care what anyone else says.
I would argue that we are the most sensual workers. I was a pretty hardcore guy but i wasn't ever able to graduate to the elite status because i never moved onto using a staff and being comfortable rubbing a shaft. I admittedly used the shortest tool possible, even shaving off both sides to be more quick and efficient (kickerless shovel) while others who made 3x as much as me learned to use a staff shovel made sure to use their full shaft length to carefully judge the best speed and angle to penetrate the soil for best results.
Good grief. It’s planting a tree not building a super computer. My 8 year olds did it last summer without a three month tree planting training camp and yet the trees are doing absolutely fine.
Here is a quick and dirty about how a quality inspector judges planted areas. Only 45 pages. Its easy reading and covers the bulk of quality demands. Other items include soil quality, placement of some species (contrary to the checker guide) if possible in the hardest area for deer to access, staggering distances and not planting in a perfect line in furrows, double hitting crisscrossed mounds, etc. There are all kinds of requirements for good trees.
Many times an area will have special restrictions for testing purposes. Different tree types and ages will be provided and there will be microsites for specific soil qualities and depths. At times you will need to carry 4 types of trees. If you’re lucky enough to be planting shrubs its cash since its like a quarter each in cream and they go in an inch apart x 1-3 types at 6-15 per plot… and the trees come after and have to space off the shrubs.
Edit: Drip line may also be a big factor on some sites. A mature five year old tree depending on type will quickly expand its drip line radius. Other trees would be removed during maintenance seasons so it was important to learn how to discern naturals from calls. Flooding was extremely rare but recognizing the high spots beside puddle spots was a bonus.
Initial livelihood depends on what was planted. Was it a seed or bare root plant? Those will die quickly if neglected or they will grow quickly if nurtured but also will exhibit issues like growing diagonally which can also be corrected quickly. Seeded and bare root plants can be corrected easily. Generally they are planted in very controlled locations… spring seedlings, overwinter and double winter seedlings (not going to name them properly because of the age of the planters you’re talking about) are also prepared for different kinds of land.
In Ontario tree prices ranged from 0.07 to 0.25 dollars per tree with a 100% quality score. At 7 cents each to make minimum wage before camp costs was about 150 trees perfectly planted per workable hour. Workable hours were usually 9 due to transport. Load up at 7, drive to the site, pep and safety talk the. Start work at 9 and finish at 6.
The rare beasts could plant 5-6000 a day. The rest planted between 2-3000 a day. This was an average per day, including half days, per season. Very few planters make good money.
Im not doubting the ability of your family but there is a difference between planting a single tree and planting 1000 trees in a day and hoping for the same outcome. A multi year mature potted plant is very different from a seedling. A seedling is delicate in that the root system needs to be properly planted to let the roots grow properly. Too deep and the roots suffocate. Too shallow and the roots dry out. Too moist the roots suffocate and when it dries they could recover or the air pocket develops into mold. Too shallow, the roots wont expand. Too shallow, the roots were jammed and will L root or J root.
As a home owner an under-appreciated piece of advice is to not put too much soil above a living tree. People think soil equals health but a lot of soil means the roots will choke from lack of oxygen. Roots need proper aeration and adding anything after it is originally planted and growing is harmful as is taking anything away.
Improperly planted trees also take a long time to show issues. A J root will have the main root system growing upwards quickly and may even break the ground in the third or fourth year. A gentle tug of the plant after its first over winter would show it obviously. An L root could resist the tug but if excavated will show an obvious root deformity. The rooting issue will mean it will take in less nutrients and grow slower but also during a storm after 10 years the tree could topple after a strong gust while other trees would stand firm.
Edit: I will have to sign up for a few events to plant trees. A bit of extra knowledge will keep me from wrongly insulting the practice. I do believe it is done properly i just dont know the methods and considerations. I spent a whole weekend removing one tree once that was busting into my parents basement and i needed a shovel an axe, a wedge, and wire cutters.
So many things I planted die. I would immediately believe your claim even without evidence.
However, not all trees die and even the dead ones will do their part by turning into soil and food for insects.
And it is without a shred of a doubt better than anything my government (Germany) has ever done.
Hey, I'd like to apologize for destroying the Black Forest multiple times in AoE2.
Nature knows no shame.
God created Siege Onagers for a reason.
100 villagers just chopping away
It’s the only suitable thing to do on that map 11
From the first chopping of lumberjacks in AOE, to the builders of warcraft orcs and humans, to man being builders of Civ6 that harvest forests, /u/ /u/MagicNipple have come far. Now begins your greatest quest…
*This post brought to us by siege onager and battering ram clan
Germany is home to an amazing search engine that plants trees when you use it:
Strange, that Ghana only ranks 124 in comparison to Germanys rank 13 in the [environmental performance index](https://epi.yale.edu/epi-indicator-report/EPI) of Yale university
WiThOuT a ShReD oF dOuBt bETtEr tHaN aNyThInG gErMaNy HaS eVeR dOnE
I mean it's objectively better than a lot of things that Germany has done.
Definitely better than that one time anyway.
[Don't mention the war!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0)
I knew this was either Fawlty Towers or James May before I clicked.
I’m getting old.
This is just my personal experience as I am an environmental consultant and my job has involved auditing cleared sites as they go through native forest regeneration in Australia, where a lot of time, money and resources is put into specific replanting programs. Replanting can fail for many reasons. Unseasonable weather, weeds choking out new saplings, saplings/seedlings not ideal size before planting out, state of soil and geology where planting occurs. Just lots of stuff that can go wrong. I’ve even been to a mine site where the earth would literally catch fire beneath the surface (coal residues spontaneously combust).
Very interesting! Since you're here I thought I would ask (have only pondered on this). During replanting of trees have they ever tried to go to similar forest and collect healthy dirts (for the micro organisms) and take mosses as well as other things and place them in the replanted area to aid in recovery?
I’ve seen different things tried with using leftover plant material that was originally taken from the site, and this is particularly useful in creating micro habitat for small fauna and insects to get them back onsite. But a lot of the sites I audit are extremely disturbed -mostly from sand or coal mining and we are also talking about extremely large surface areas of land that need to be restored. Taking a small amount of organic matter from established areas would be insufficient to amend these soil profiles, indeed one could say that the soil profiles don’t even exist anymore, apart from attempts to reintroduce stockpiled topsoils captured from the same site. Honestly one of the easiest ways to get soil profile and microbial life back into these lands is with selective, rotational cattle grazing as a large area can have fertility restored in a relatively short period of time. This is also useful in restoring heavily disturbed soils to a functioning level of agricultural class, as a good chunk of these lands is generally set aside for agriculture post-mining (as it’s usually not all forested afterwards and the gvt will set a target for percentage forest vs agriculture cover). You should conservatively plan for at least five years management and follow up to get a native “forest” planted and functioning without human intervention. Typically one species of tree will dominate, becoming the pioneer plants that create shade, soil protection and allow other smaller plants to thrive. These will have to be selectively thinned as they grow, to allow other species a chance snd achieve the specific mix of native habitat that you desire
I did some research about Cattle grazing you have mentioned, its amazing.
I have so many more questions!!!! Ty for taking the time to chat.
No probs I love my job
I just saw a guy on Reddit say it!
Part of the problem is the soil. Once it's disturbed it's fucked
A solution that was used in the US after the great dust bowl back in the 30s was to plant strips of trees on the borders of farms. The trees helped block wind and trap the soil - and also helped retain moisture in the land. It will take years and years for the land to recover and they have to also let the forests themselves replenish - but it would allow folks to farm, protect the soil and such.
I was somewhat baffled to see most windbreaks removed where I grew up in the late 90s. It’s like we don’t learn from our mistakes.
for this plant in particular? go on, i want to know more :)
Even if most did die, as long as they keep at it you eventually have progress. Forest environments are complex, it is the literal circle of life. If you can keep it going even by a thread long enough for other organisms to return and/or multiply, expanding or re-establishing the existing/former cycles (or new ones that are close enough), it can stabilize. Very long and filled with caveats story short and generalized.
> Even if most did die, as long as they keep at it you eventually have progress.
Well, thats nice that *eventually* there will be progress, but don't you think it would be more efficient from the cost perspective and more morally correct from the people perspective to not waste money and manpower/people's good will and do it *right*? Not wasting a large proportion of trees, but making sure that the trees survive in the first place?
Trees when planted in areas where reforestation is planned will incrementation of closer and closer plantations until the growth rates can be maximized for the next harvest cycle. There are numerous research papers but id argue for any paper that includes the lifecycle of any harvested product and the cycle of any growth and sequestration of non viable plants that decompose in the area between harvest cycles.
A Canadian forest may spend 40- 50 years growing before being reharvested. During that time there are cycles of management that kill competing plants which grow and then culled and left to rot which is carbon neutral. The harvested trees are harvested and used for lumber and other materials (some is burned which returns a portion of the carbon through burning) and the branches of the wood are generally piled high in slash piles in reforested areas and left to rot to return as much material back to the land as possible.
The value in areas classed for reforestation is not in the quantity of trees but the quality of trees. Good trees are used for housing and furniture (sequestered unless discarded). Bad trees are dumped into piles and allowed to rot and decompose naturally. Over time the tree piles become so large that bad trees can become good trees. Thats fucked up imo but at least they are being used.
Wood pellet production and slashpile burning is also a common practice to reduce the death rate of healthy of trees that might become insect or fire hazards. Thats a bullshit reason as there are options to avoid slash piles but it costs more than grinding the piles into cash pellets or turning them into pyres.
Saying that there are huge areas of growing trees that just die due to environmental reasons. A huge storm could rip through an area and wash away the topsoil of a million newly planted trees and they would all rot because their roots were exposed. To solve this some places call for selective harvesting where less than a certain percentage of an area is allowed to be harvested. Maybe 5 hectares of land in a 50 hectare area. The bullshit harvesters line up good areas beside swamps or hills without trees and claim the natural areas where trees dont grow had harvested trees and are included in the total allowed area . This hurts reforestation, and the slash piles should go there both because it bring decomposing material to a soilless location but money means it takes more work to bring the slash piles there.
You're not wrong. Lots of trees are planted in these kinds of projects without any thought of monitoring or protection which results in a majority of saplings dying.
i'm pretty sure there are reasonable options. people with forestry backgrounds would understand what weighs in to this, I can't sensibly comment.
This. Hell, even in Europe I see plantations of trees dying within the first few years because things are not thought through. Planting oak trees for instance in fully exposed fields is ridiculous since they do not tolerate high levels of sun. The hot summers in recent years don't help either.
Also, natural succession is a better approach in many cases compared to planting trees. Because of natural succession the soil is being prepared for tree growth. It gets oxygenated by the roots of weeds that settle first, ground microbiota establish, weeds grow and die off and enrich the soil with nutrients, weed cover prevents the soil from drying out etc... Natural succession is also a better way to increase biodiversity.
Yeah, I’m curious about how they’re going to make sure there’s adequate moisture fir the trees to develop strong root systems. The spirit is in the right place, but the execution and subsequent months to years of follow up will be the real challenge.
>most of the trees die
Yes. That's normal.
And the right trees in the right place. Doing this wrong can fuck things up worse.
What an amazing achievement. For reference (and a til for me):
"the world's overall tree leader is clearly Russia, with 642 billion total trees, followed by Canada with 318 billion and Brazil with 302 billion. The United States is actually fourth overall in this ranking, with 228 billion trees"
It makes sense, those are all in the top 5 countries by area.
I mean there’s a faster solution to that problem it’s just morally wrong/evil because 20 million trees is equal to 31k dead people
I know you're joking, but this wouldn't work either. Killing people to combat climate change is like finding 4 people sharing a pie and killing one to save 1/4 of the pie. You just get 3 people eating 1/3 of a pie each.
Positive post about an African country is guaranteed to result in "yea but..." "if they do it right..." "I don't want it to fail but..." and the replies are exactly that.
This is a great idea! We should all do this….let’s plant a tree every Earth Day!
Fuck yeah Ghana
Just out of curiosity.... How many of the 5 million planted grow to be like full trees?
[This study ](https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2014/nrs_roman_2014_002.pdf) conducted in urban Sacramento found around 70% of planted trees survived to five years. [This one ](https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/files/4e/4e5f2a54-f016-408a-b520-1b965f175924.pdf) found it varied greatly by species but the average was a little more than 50%. Idk if survivorship would be better or worse in Ghana. I would assume better if they are using native trees with no disturbance. I think it would also depend on how close together the trees are. A lot might survive awhile until they are outcompeted for space if they are really close
For a bit of context, that study is looking at what is one of my favorite programs, Sacramento (technically SMUD) will give residents up to 10 free trees. Residents get to choose from about [40 different species](https://www.sactree.com/shadetrees). That program started in 1990, and I think is part of why there are so many trees growing in and around Sacramento, and as the introduction says, was initiated to combat urban heat islands. Just a really neat, thoughtful program.
That’s a really cool program! I wish my city would do something like this
You cant simply compare that to ghana. There are more variables than you give credit.
I’m not comparing directly to Ghana. I even said that I don’t know how the info I provided would apply to Ghana. I simply looked up a few studies and shared them with someone who asked a question.
Would you like to contribute something useful to the discussion? Perhaps some facts and figures about tree survivability in Ghana?
Thanks, your opinion is valuable /u/ilove2eatsmellypussy.
I mean it can have some effect, if you plant a massive amount of trees. [China has planted several billion trees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_\(China\)) along the Gobi Desert, and it has shown some positive effect, but they made some bad decisions regarding the trees. I just hope Ghana, and others, have learned something from the mistakes China made.
>The Great Green Wall, officially known as the Three-North Shelter Forest Program (simplified Chinese: 三北防护林; traditional Chinese: 三北防護林; pinyin: Sānběi Fánghùlín), also known as the Three-North Shelterbelt Program, is a series of human-planted windbreaking forest strips (shelterbelts) in China, designed to hold back the expansion of the Gobi Desert, and provide timber to the local population. The program started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050, at which point it will be 4,500 kilometres (2,800 mi) long. The project's name indicates that it is to be carried out in all three of the northern regions: the North, the Northeast and the Northwest.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
What bad decisions?
Notably, a lot of it was just one or a couple of species of trees. Essentially monoculture; basically like a big plantation. Independent studies strongly suggest they're overall less useful for climate effects than a natural forest with many tree species. Monoculture is also pretty useless from a biodiversity point of view; there are not a lot of other species that thrive in monoculture and the few that do tend to be the most common+adaptable (i.e., all the rarer, more specialised animals/plants won't live there). Additionally, monoculture forests/woodlands are more vulnerable to disease and often involve fast-growing trees with relatively shallow roots, which are more vulnerable in case of storms and similar events.
These are also some of the reasons why literally no biologist/environmentalist is happy when a location in Borneo gets a new oil palm "forest" or Brazil gets an eucalyptus "forest", even if it is in an area that already had been deforested many years ago. The fact that they're non-native is an added problem. Natural tropical forests (temperate forests to a much lesser degree) tend to be extremely diverse and composed of many tree species. Once a natural tropical forest has been deforested it is a complex and time-consuming process to get it again.
I know nothing of the Ghana project, but hopefully they've considered these things. The only thing the article says about species is that the president planted lignum vitae (valuable wood but non-native), and that "participants chose from a selection of fruit, crop or ornamental trees".
click on the link the poster shared
I really hope the species were varied, cause if not they could cause a serious issue with the ecosystem there. Still great to hear about though!
this. as china found out the hard way in the Gobi desert.
I don't think it works like that.
Mad how developing countries are doing more for the environment than the rest of us.
It probably has to do with the fact that these same countries will be the the hardest hit by climate change
Exactly, Yesterday G7 summit failed to set an end-date for coal after the U.S. and Japan blocked a deal.
>The meeting was pitched as a moment for the group to set a benchmark for other countries to tackle emissions and scrub out fossil fuels ahead of the COP26 U.N. climate talks this November.
“We were clear this weekend that action has to start with us,” U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson told reporters immediately after the meeting ended Sunday.
>But the Biden administration — fixated on cultivating the Democrats’ razor-thin Senate majority and the coal mining sympathies of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin — was wary of any language specifically clamping down on coal.
West Virginia coal is uncompetitive anyway and will [disappear ](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-coal-jobs-down-24-from-the-start-of-trump-administration-to-latest-quarter-61386963)
Haha we are so fucked. And we deserve it
Nah. The ones who are completely fucking the environment are the ones who deserve it, we're just the ones who will have to deal with the shit after they die.
Joe Manchin is an excuse anyway. Nothing will fundamentally change was literally an electoral strategy
How would the US enforce such an idea? Biden can't sign a treaty and get it through the Senate and if he wanted to do it through the EPA, he'd so piss off some Democratic senators he'd never get another bill through Congress. I am not suggesting I support coal, but from a pragmatic perspective you can't just pick an end date and make it go away. Best to just let renewables and natural gas kill the economics of coal power and let those coal plants just shut down of their own accord once they prove to be money losers (which is what has been going on for the last 10 or so years).
Tbh developing countries have a better chance at starting their manufacturing industries the right way. The world’s progress is all trial and error. Not saying these “developed” countries are unable to do better, just harder for them to hit the brakes and/or reform the systems entirely. These developing countries can benefit greatly from studying the consequences of such industrial practices
Brazil clear cuts about 2 million fully grown trees per day and is a developing country.
this. 5 million a year is NOTHING. (they plan it as a n annual event)
100m is the minimum at which this actually does a little. but then again in a single country? not so much. though i guess some european countries do something similar each year, excep maybe britain. britan has no woods anymore.
Ghana is doing Ghana, which is about 36 times smaller than Brazil. And as they said, the goals is that singular event grows to 100 million a year. They said nothing about twiddling fingers and doing nothing else besides this.
>100m is the minimum at which this actually does a little.
You don't have to plant a lot of trees at once as long as it continues over period of years then it will bear fruit and the forest will self maintain the size/grow
Iceland is a good e.x of that having lost allmost all of its woodland then re-gained it
There’s a bill in the US Congress to bump our annual tree planting to 3.3 billion a year. We plant a lot of trees as well. We need to do a whole lot more of everything though.
Mad how you read a headline and assume that's true
Most western nation have actually increased their forest coverage pretty significantly over the last 100 years. Their issues tend to be emissions-related rather than cutting-down trees.
>Each year 1.7 billion trees are planted in the United States.
They actually aren’t. Most don’t have the resources or regulations in place to do so.
Why do you say they are doing "more"? We plant almost 2 billion trees a year in the US. Our CO2 emissions have been dropping for the last several years. Now yes, this is all pretty much done through market forces and not government fiat, but it isn't like the US is doing nothing.
link for CO2 emissions inventory: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks
They are directly affected by it so they see the need for action. Developed countries are less effected, or better said can more easily cope with the current effects, so people care less.
Speak for yourself
Brazil is doing much for the environment too, under pressure of your developed countries...
We cut 40 million trees each day [https://rain-tree.com/facts.htm](https://rain-tree.com/facts.htm) , 20 % of the Amazon rainforest is already gone.
That 20% is stored as **FAT** inside the Chinese, European and Americans as meat and soy products.
^(Those vegans are so annoying! Let me finish my beloved steak here, who cares if it took 500 trees to make it!)
Absolutely no idea why this is getting downvoted
Reddit makes no sense sometimes
It makes absolute sense. Wherever you make people remember their flaws, they feel threatened. They subconsciously activate the fight or flight response and get agressive, they try to eliminate the source of their problems by attacking the "threat". They attack others for revealing their ugliness.
It is interesting though, to see them dancing the careful biological programming of their bodies without realizing it.
If you try to say: "Smoking is bad and gives you cancer, that is a fact." - smokers will try to attack you on the same principle.
Agree with some of what you said but it could definitely be phrased in a far less patronising and self-aggrandising way
Sorry, you are right. If we want to make progress, we must swallow our pride, recognize our flaws and work towards a positive outcome
2 weeks later 4.8 million trees have died. Or 5 years later 5 million trees of the same species wiped out via disease.
I respect the efforts to plant 5 million trees, but it would be more interesting to see how many of these actually survive and how much of it is actually just mono culture for future logging. Canada does the same thing every year, fuck load of mono culture planted for logging.
You should probably read the article. Everything you posted about Ghana is wrong.
You should probably read it again yourself because it says absolutely nothing about whether this is for logging, mono culture, whether it is 5 million trees spread in cities, etc. All it says is the seeds planted, some were handed out in malls and shopping centers. And it does mention one of the seeds planted was known for its medicinal properties and among the worlds hardest woods. So that kind of tells you one of the aims is for future harvesting.
Rich western countries should help really. They’ve taken so much in the past it would be good to put a little something back and help countries like Ghana with projects like these. It can only be for the good of us all and the planet.
Most of them are already feeling the impacts and will suffer more from climate catastrophes vs. developed countries (especially those located at higher latitudes)
Just wait until they start [injecting hydrogen sulfide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection) into the stratosphere to buy a few more years at a time.
To be fair Ghana has had a really bad deforestation problem and it was on the rise and is still a major issue. The planting of this many trees won’t even cover the number being cut every year.
Than the rest of who?
That’s an enormous conclusion to jump to based off the headline ‘Ghana is planting 5 million trees’
In someways they have the most to lose.
[empties dump truck full of acorns into a sandy hole]
South park vibes
Planting trees does little to nothing compared to refraining from cutting them down in the first place. Ghana is systematically removing it's forests using slash and burn methods to make room for agriculture and is unlikely to stop any time soon. Planting trees seems almost entirely symbolism, ignorance and public relations. There's a reason why you never see articles about wealthy nations engaging in massive tree planting campaigns.
Acheampong, Emmanuel Opoku, et al. "Deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion in Ghana's forest reserves." Scientific African 5 (2019): e00146.
Benhin, James KA, and Edward B. Barbier. "Structural adjustment programme, deforestation and biodiversity loss in Ghana." Environmental and Resource Economics 27.3 (2004): 337-366.
>Ghana is systematically removing it's forests using slash and burn methods to make room for agriculture and is unlikely to stop any time soon.
It's not 'Ghana', it's small-scale farmers who live around forested areas who are deforesting. Tricky situation, since they're doing it for food security.
When you refer to 'slash and burn methods' for land clearance- are you referring to the use of fire to clear land seasonally, or the act of deforesting to clear new land?
I'm referring to clearing new land for agriculture.
Thanks for responding. Fair enough; I asked because I find the use of 'slash and burn' a bit of a manipulative term. I'm not accusing you of manipulation, you used the term correctly (as you know), I'm just using your comment as a jumping off point to randomly get something off my chest-
The term 'slash and burn' is so unnecessarily descriptive in my opinion...no one is deforesting without slashing and burning, you can't (ok you technically can with a boatload or herbicide and/or manual labour, but that's silly). More to the point, the term 'slash and burn' is almost uniquely used to describe the deforestation caused by smallholder and subsistence farmers in the tropics, who are actually the most marginalised and vulnerable people in the world, literally suffering this very day from malnutrition due to not being able to grow enough food. I feel that the use of terms like 'slash and burn' shifts the blame for deforestation to these people, instead of where it should be (rich/western countries who will not contribute to subsidizing the real costs of production).
/rant, and again this isn't really directed at volkhavaar, just the ether
Yeah, that makes total sense. Different word usage invokes different ideas about the same thing. But maybe instead of getting lost in a conversation about how best to describe the deforestation, it might be better to understand why it's happening. Ghana is one of the top exporters of cocoa, and clearing forest (by whatever method) is attractive to grow this profitable export. And profitable agricultural exports are attractive to grow in a country lacking wealth.
> There's a reason why you never see articles about wealthy nations engaging in massive tree planting campaigns.
reforestation is sensible forestry management, no? so while maybe it's not splashy headlines, I assume there's a lot of mass scale planting happening.
The issue is that trees need water and nutrients. When you "slash and burn" a forest, the nutrients that were stored in the trees go into ash that fertilizes the soil. However, after a cocoa crop (or whichever export is most profitable) is harvested for a few years, the nutrients are depleted and a new section of forest is slashed and burned. The previously depleted soil is almost assuredly where the new trees are planted. Without nutrient rich soil and irrigation these trees won't go far.
The idea of planting trees confuses me because where I live, trees grow up by themselves and prosper, as long as you don't cut them down. If you aren't cutting them down and they aren't growing up by themselves, it seems like there must be something wrong with the land that is making it incapable of supporting trees. In that case it seems like you'd be better off planting brushy plants and small bushes until the land recovers.
Ghana is also turning a blind eye to a lot of unregulated galmsey gold mining causing horrific environmental damage.
To clarify this, there is regulated small scale artisanal galmsey mining and larger scale unregulated galmsey mining often funded by those in positions of power.
The small scale stuff is essentially by hand tools, while the larger more destructive illegal mining uses larger excavators, loaders, washing plants and leaves a huge mess.
Mining companies in Ghana are heavily regulated and have to submit water, environmental and rehab plans before permission is given to mine.
I wish this comment was higher up
This is nothing to cheer about. It is just a very deceiving initiative and some greenwashing propaganda. From what I get from different sources they are planting seedlings of the non native Lignum vitae. This species is known for its expensive hardwood. Ghana has one of the highest rates of deforestation of Africa. They are cutting down primary forests, destroying intact ecosystems harbouring a tremendous biodiversity. This is no real effort to curb deforestation, it is deceit in its truest form. They are creating monocultures of trees for future monetary gains, not ecological ones. This is just a form of forestry.
More in depth analysis on r/trees
Everytime a see an article like this, I think to myself "its way easier to plant a tree than to receive a sapling and make sure it grows healthy into adulthood, I hope they have a plan to take care of them after they are already planted, a year with drought could kill a bunch if there is no irrigation."
Ghana says hello (to 5 million trees)
200,000 trees an hour …. Hmm
Finally some good fucking news!
Leaving forests to regrow naturally ‘could be better option than replanting’
Not if you want to significantly stop desertification. The desert wins in most cases, if nothing is done. Just look at Spain.
I don't know about every desert in Spain but there is some [myth behind the origin of the desert of Monegros](https://www.heraldo.es/noticias/aragon/2019/10/25/desmontando-mito-los-monegros-no-tuvo-frondoso-bosque-ni-deforesto-para-construir-armada-invencible-1340349.html) in Spain if you are talking about that.
Basically for the english readers there was a myth about a king that cut a lot of trees to build battleships as revenge to the people in Aragon. Howevere there are no historical accounts of tree clearing at that scale and the geologists say that the real cause may be that the ground is too salty, and also there is very little rain.
There are different versions in every region with different deserts and "bad guys". So it looks to me more like a popular tale.
Porque no los dos?
But if you have already cut down a significant portion of the forests a helping hand is necessary.
Better do both
At least some governments are doing something...
Go Ghana, with Brazil would take notice.
I wish my country would do the samee
I feel like every country should do something like that.
Whats the survival rate?
If only they would clean up the trash that’s literally everywhere
Planting is nothing, I want to see watering 5 mil trees
Just a heads up Pakistan has also planted a billion trees in the last 3 years alone. Yup its true. While I don't see any national campaigns by countries such as India or us or UK etc to plant more trees.why only the smaller countries planting ?
Quite the undertaking I’ve planted 3500 this year so far and it the most I can do in one day is 300. They must have one hell of a team
Why doesn't every country do this?
I’m sorry, but donating to Mr.Beast’s website doesn’t actually count as planting a tree.
Plant trees and distribute condoms so population is in control. That should be the way forward in all countries especially India and China. Save your country and save the planet
? Births have been dropping in China for the past 4 years in a row.
They were probably all the same kind of tree this making the problem worse.
Theyre Ghana do it. I believe in this ambitious goal. Go ghana!
I wouldn't have guess they were Ghana get it done in a day!
Y they not doin this in the rainforest in Brazil
The whole point in Brazil is they want the rainforest gone to make place for farm and grasslands to get that sweet pork and beef money.
So, people are not allowed to get out of poverty?
Aint the fucking poor doing that (they will be used as legal excuses if shit goes wrong and in bs rethoric like yours for sympathy points though) to get out of poverty. It is the good old large farm owners using a few proxies to just get richer. Fuck'em.
Because the Brazilian government sucks and *wants* the Amazon to burn
just so we are being real. This took a lot of planning. Hundreds of Greenhouse built, people taught, plants shipped all over the country and finally they get planted in one day.
stop buying animal products.
Cutting trees isn't as devastating as we think if done in a proper informed way. Young trees consume more co2 than already grown ones. Since they use it to grow as well , not simply for photosynthesis. The problem is in people cutting like absolute numb nuts with disregard of everything.
Forestry is a sustainable industry, you’re absolutely right. It’s these asshats like Teal-Morgan here in BC that want to make profit off the old growth -> We have some of the worlds oldest trees on Vancouver Island and they happen to be the counter to young trees : They are the best for reducing co2
Only 8,698,630 trees short of all the trees lost today.
Where do those trees come from?
Do they make steroids for trees so that they can grow faster? Google says https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/scientists-have-discovered-a-way-to-make-trees-grow-bigger-and-faster/
That’s the way to do it, huh. Good on them for getting off their butts and taking action.
How easy is it for all of us to just go plant a tree. Right now, today. Find a spot and just pop a seedling into the dirt.
That's Ghana help quite a bit
Anyone know if there’s a way to donate for this kind of activity? I want to pay for trees to get planted
This is great! Folks should know that's it's not uncommon, though. Each year 1.7 billion trees are planted in the United States. https://northamericanforestfoundation.org/tree-wood-facts/
Great Work Ghana =D
France's forests have grown another 2.5% (of the already occupied space) in 2020, now covering 34% of the territory (France and it's islands). A hundred years ago, France's forests had been reduced to roughly 5% of the currently owned territory, the main reason being over exploitation of wood (as fuel), and the need for much larger pastures and farmland (cause: lack of fertilizer science).
France's goal is to achieve 37% for 2050, and to convert the current forestry operations (of fast growth trees like poplars and pines) into long term investments, to replant a lot of the new forests with mainly long growth trees native to France, both as an environmental move, but also to leave something for our grandkids to use :)
De-desertification / reforestation really really interests me.
I have dreams of us taking back all the deserts one day. It's gotta be possible, I really don't get the impression that we've put a lot of effort into it as a species.
That's amazing work.
Someone should call Trudeau so he can go see how's it's done and he could keep his campaign promises.
Mr Beast ain’t seem so great now eh
My brother lives in the Philippines where they do this kind of stuff. Sawmills are illegal. As soon as the trees get any size locals cut them down anyway and burn them to make charcoal to sell at the market.
And Brazil cuts down 10 million the same day
5mil in a day wonder what the % will live 1yr idk how high that would be
I always plant two trees for every one I want kind of like a insurance policy and now I have twice the trees that I set out for win win I guess
That’s a lot of fucking trees
Did they hire Quebecois tree planters on methamphetamines??!?
That is a lot of fucking trees.
I think I’m ghana plant a tree too
Respect. Atleast someone out there cares about the nature.
@presidantspanky wrong video whoops. :)
I hope of varying species.
This is good but.. humans are gonna destroy this planet
There guys putting Mr. Beast to SHAME!!!!
That’s some wood
Serious question, why do people plant trees when they can just stop destroying the ones that have?
Lets fucking go
My former botany professor (one of my favorites in college) is from there, and I’m sure that she must be smiling big now as it combines two things that she loves very much: plants and her home. She was so passionate about botany that she made every lecture an interesting dive into the world of plant life.
Ghana: lit funerals and forests
i know this sounds like a dumb question or maybe it is… where does anyone get 5 million trees ready to plant?