Topic: One Million Trees (Read 622 times)

we need more initiative like this, now more than ever

Yeah deforestation is common factor in our environment as man tries to conquer his environment by creating new artificial landscapes for himself and by so doing is causing damages to the environment. Planting trees is a good environmental project as the trees in our environment have many economical, biotic and abiotic importance and these importance cannot be over emphasized as man depends on it for his day to day activities.

Planting trees will make the environment more eco friendly and it’s gives the environment a greenhouse effects. Trees are used for beautification and lots of herbs can be gotten from some special trees.

Agreed, the NYC in OP's post tend to only state a location for the topic concerned. Nobody cares really about the scenario in nyc needing for trees, Although maybe for a newyorker, they do. But for the topic, it is all about the effect of the 1m planting activity, or about the stupidity behind the tree planting activity. 

Just another comment. I don't care about this. But the people living there may well care, even care quite a bit. Whatever. That's their problem.

I don't care about the appearance of streets in NY at all. Like many other downtowns, it's likely infested with homeless which spoils the impression of the city. This is especially true of Downtown.

In any case, tree planting is needed in New York, because in NY, namely in Manhattan, there is very little vegetation on the city streets, which spoils the impression of the city. This is especially true of Downtown. There is a large number of high-rise buildings made of concrete and glass, and there are almost no trees at all.

Forests are forests because trees grow there.  Where trees grow, you cannot stop them from growing without a hell of a lot of continuous effort.

For a while some other plant might grow, but they tend to have all of the advantages of trees anyway.  Ultimately the species which is most adapted for an environment takes over.

You guys are fighting a problem which doesn't exist.  That's fine to try to get trees growing where they shouldn't and won't normally hurt anything, but it's not going so 'save the earth'.  Ecologically it is probably more 'disruptive' than commercial harvest of native species, but in a practical sense a bunch of kids planting a few trees (while they get indoctrinated with political propaganda) isn't going to make much difference to Mother Gaia.

Where I'm from a commercial harvest of trees always comes with a re-plant.  By law.  And it's been that way for 50 years.  That's fine, but what happens is that there are a lot of research programs which selectively breed Douglas Fir for fast growth optimized for mills which handle under 24" timber.  The fallout of that is that vasts swaths are planted in what is very much a mono-culture of genetics which are optimized for one particular thing, and that one thing is not necessarily what nature would have selected.  Mono-cultures tend to do OK until one organism comes along which can exploit a weakness then there is a sudden and massive die-off.

Trees are so important for us humans. Everyone knows that. Who doesn't like to go to the forest during a hot summer day? The impact of  trees on the climate is huge. I wish we all would try to protect our forest more. Planting trees is a great thing, I volunteered many times when I was younger at an charity event where we spent a weekend in the woods. One good idea would be to force companies who use a lot of wood, to plant one tree for any tree killed.

It's true, until I started to read about and actually understand geology, I didn't even understand rocks. Let alone green stuff like trees.

But it's nice we have so many that know it all.

Basically, if something doesn't form coal beds (like, say, peat bogs) then it is carbon neutral.  Doesn't matter if it is an old-growth forest or an inch of slime.  When things fall to the forest floor, they rot and the carbon is released right back into the atmosphere.  And a lot of forests burn regularly which simply speeds make the process more of a step-wise function.

People have a tendancy to think in timeframe terms they are familiar with; a few decades.  Trying to map these geological timescale systems to human timeframes is just stupid.

All of the carbon given off by people on a yearly basis + the vastly more given off by completely natural things (like seasonally cyclic decompositions) + all of the oil and coal reserves under the surface of the earth are completely dwarfed just by the amount of carbon disolved in the waters of the ocean.

Then you have to consider that sequestered by animal activity such as all of the karsk deposits (limestone) which is a massive amount (but nothing compared to that disolved in the ocean.)  This is probably one of the main reasons that available atmospheric carbon availability is at historic lows in geological timeframes.

The long and the short of it is that the 'footprint' of humans in the whole carbon cycle analysis is completely trivial and meaningless.  That is in terms of both geological timerframes AND human timeframes.

Anthropogenic climate change via carbon dioxide is as big a shame as 'covid-19', and is brought to you by the very same people and for the very same reasons:  Seeking to legitimize their power-grabs and scapegoating average people as one of the devices used in their efforts.  It's ridiculous and it's sick.

When it comes to trees, it's worth note that the same tiny group of oligarchs who own the mineral wealth also own vast forests (e.g., Weyerhauser in my area.)  They simply don't want the competition from state and national forests so they get a bunch of eco-simpletons to worship trees.  Note that the greenies almost never hassle to large forest corporations anymore.  It's almost always in a national forest where they go 'owl spotting' and such-like.

At least they are trying to plant, and some one thinking about dirt getting all over, and some legendary person even counting for the CO2 emissions, trees not only responsible to reduce not only CO2 emissions. They create a biodiversity.

Some more advantages:

01.TREES COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE
Excess carbon dioxide (CO2) is building up in our atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Trees absorb CO2, removing and storing the carbon while releasing oxygen back into the air. In one year, an acre of mature trees absorbs the same amount of CO2 produced when you drive your car 26,000 miles.

 
02.
TREES CLEAN THE AIR
Trees absorb odors and pollutant gases (nitrogen oxides, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and ozone) and filter particulates out of the air by trapping them on their leaves and bark.

 
03.
TREES PROVIDE OXYGEN
In one year an acre of mature trees can provide enough oxygen for 18 people.

 
04.
TREES COOL THE STREETS AND THE CITY
Average temperatures in Los Angeles have risen 6°F in the last 50 years as tree coverage has declined and the number of heat-absorbing roads and buildings has increased.
Trees cool the city by up to 10°F, by shading our homes and streets, breaking up urban “heat islands” and releasing water vapor into the air through their leaves.

05.
TREES CONSERVE ENERGY
Three trees placed strategically around a single-family home can cut summer air conditioning needs by up to 50 percent. By reducing the energy demand for cooling our houses, we reduce carbon dioxide and other pollution emissions from power plants.

 
06.
TREES SAVE WATER
Shade from trees slows water evaporation from thirsty lawns. Most newly planted trees need only fifteen gallons of water a week. As trees transpire, they increase atmospheric moisture.

 
07.
TREES HELP PREVENT WATER POLLUTION
Trees reduce runoff by breaking rainfall thus allowing the water to flow down the trunk and into the earth below the tree. This prevents stormwater from carrying pollutants to the ocean. When mulched, trees act like a sponge that filters this water naturally and uses it to recharge groundwater supplies.

 
08.
TREES HELP PREVENT SOIL EROSION
On hillsides or stream slopes, trees slow runoff and hold soil in place.

09.
TREES SHIELD CHILDREN FROM ULTRA-VIOLET RAYS
Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. Trees reduce UV-B exposure by about 50 percent, thus providing protection to children on school campuses and playgrounds - where children spend hours outdoors.

 
10.
TREES PROVIDE FOOD
An apple tree can yield up to 15-20 bushels of fruit per year and can be planted on the tiniest urban lot. Aside from fruit for humans, trees provide food for birds and wildlife.
11.
TREES HEAL
Studies have shown that patients with views of trees out their windows heal faster and with less complications. Children with ADHD show fewer symptoms when they have access to nature. Exposure to trees and nature aids concentration by reducing mental fatigue.

 
12.
TREES REDUCE VIOLENCE
Neighborhoods and homes that are barren have shown to have a greater incidence of violence in and out of the home than their greener counterparts. Trees and landscaping help to reduce the level of fear.

13.
TREES MARK THE SEASONS
Is it winter, spring, summer or fall? Look at the trees.

 
14.
TREES CREATE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES
Fruit harvested from community orchards can be sold, thus providing income. Small business opportunities in green waste management and landscaping arise when cities value mulching and its water-saving qualities. Vocational training for youth interested in green jobs is also a great way to develop economic opportunities from trees.

 
15.
TREES ARE TEACHERS AND PLAYMATES
Whether as houses for children or creative and spiritual inspiration for adults, trees have provided the space for human retreat throughout the ages.

 
16.
TREES BRING DIVERSE GROUPS OF PEOPLE TOGETHER
Tree plantings provide an opportunity for community involvement and empowerment that improves the quality of life in our neighborhoods. All cultures, ages, and genders have an important role to play at a tree planting or tree care event.

17.
TREES ADD UNITY
Trees as landmarks can give a neighborhood a new identity and encourage civic pride.

 
18.
TREES PROVIDE A CANOPY AND HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE
Sycamore and oak are among the many urban species that provide excellent urban homes for birds, bees, possums and squirrels.

 
19.
TREES BLOCK THINGS
Trees can mask concrete walls or parking lots, and unsightly views. They muffle sound from nearby streets and freeways, and create an eye-soothing canopy of green. Trees absorb dust and wind and reduce glare.

 
20.
TREES PROVIDE WOOD
In suburban and rural areas, trees can be selectively harvested for fuel and craft wood.

21.
TREES INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES
The beauty of a well-planted property and its surrounding street and neighborhood can raise property values by as much as 15 percent.

 
22.
TREES INCREASE BUSINESS TRAFFIC
Studies show that the more trees and landscaping a business district has, the more business will flow in. A tree-lined street will also slow traffic – enough to allow the drivers to look at the store fronts instead of whizzing by.

TREES CAN LIVE WITHOUT HUMUNS , HUMUNS CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT TREES.

I don't really know if it's gonna make some changed in the current state of your place however you could make a progress later if you start now. You could start alone and after some time many people will follow your footstep if they saw some progress from you are about to do. Just like these couples who manage to revive an abused mountain from illegal logging and they work hard to make plant trees and years passed, you can see the fruit of their hard work.



https://www.intelligentliving.co/couple-brazilian-forest

We have been familiar with the slogan plant trees save the environment since childhood trees are human friends a unique gift of nature primary is taught trees give us flowers fruits shade from an early age early children understand that trees are above flowers fruits and shade. Trees are our bulwark forests are the only alternative to forests to deal with natural disasters like cyclones there is no substitute for trees to maintain the balance of the environment, to keep the water cycle in order to protect it from the elements to keep the fauna alive that is why the government of each country is calling for more trees to be planted.

It's been calculated that as little as 1/8" of live green stuff on the land of the Earth would completely zero out the additional Co2 from our activities.

But as tvfcov noted it doesn't have to be trees. It's really just us humans that like the trees better than pond scum.

You are right now we have new government and they are also doing some good work for this project they have target of 1 Billion trees in next few years because its really need of time and better future of next generation we are doing some hard work hopefully we will achieve this target and have really good number of trees in next few years.

Planting trees and creating a healthy ecosystem which won’t interfere with the region is what should be done. The amount of trees planted doesn’t mean anything if they aren’t planted efficiently. Timber mills plant tons of trees to use them in 30 years, but it doesn’t help any because there is no ecosystem in these

Planting on side of the road is the best spot for trees to be planted, but how can you even know if an area will be widened few years later. It's like saying that there is no point in planting trees in an open lot when later on, subdivisions will be built in that area. Acting for the presents issue will be the best, we can move trees if they will widen the roads in the future.


In our university, it is part of our graduation requirement to at least plant 5 trees before the end of the final semester. And no student ever disapproved of this idea, every student actually agrees, and love this idea that they even take time to visit mountain areas that was subjected in illegal logging to be planted by trees who has no worth when cutted.

Trees are very important for us and our health and only when people will understand this thing we will have everywhere only trees. I guess that then people will stop thinking that trees are not living forever and that we need to take care of them and at the same time to plant the others. You know I always tried to make my garden full of trees and plants. Even recently I ordered from here https://www.plantingtree.com/blogs/gardening/thuja-green-giant-for-sale thujas and I cannot wait to see how they will look in my garden. I learned everything about them from that site and now I know what they like. I'll keep you in touch.

Trees don't live forever it makes sense to eventually clear forrest, as long as you plant more new trees than you harvet.

Some trees even need wildfire to actually spread. The Sequoias in California need a lot of space to grow and only release their seeds during fires.

We should take care of our evironment, which doesn't mean to never use wood again.

I have been planting trees once a year since I was a kid. It's a great way to do something for nature will spending a weekend outside.

Trees help save our lives We take oxygen from the tree Therefore the more trees we plant the more beautiful our surroundings are going to be there's no comparison of Paris in terms of tree planting. Not just road ghats but just rows of trees next to everyone's house which is extremely nice that's why we all got to stop killing forests and plant more trees.

We need to consider tree planting in more detail.

A million trees would be about 16 square miles at 20' intervals. However, if we planted the seeds at 1" intervals, it would only take 1/6 of one acre or an area about 70 x 100'. So, this is starting to look interesting. One person with an average size piece of dirt could plant the million trees.

Are those NY political hacks paying for this or giving tax discounts? Because if the sole requirement is the "planting", there's one heck of a deal here. Plus, think about all the delicious tiny shoots that the rats, squirrels and rabbits can eat.

That was impossible to happen because we have a limited location to place in the future. It's surely cut again but that was good idea for atleast the number of trees would be grown.

I myself have planted exactly 251 trees, so I guess at least 100 people can have a pass there.
Here is this little to known fact about trees, anyone that is aware of the existence of geological era know as carbon, can ask himself this question. From where and why all this coal that we mine comes from? Those are millions and millions of metric tons of coal we are talking about. As we know, this mineral has formed about 360 millions years ago, from fallen trees and other plants. Turn on your imagination now; what happened that all those plants felt simultaneously, throughout entire planet? What forced them to slip underground and turn in to a "rock"? Answer may surprise you, modern scholars are of opinion that trees (and those where some really massive trunks, 2,3 times bigger than those of today) overgrew the planet's capability of their sustainment! Trees caused natural yet cataclysmic climate change to a point of crash and extinction. Trees are killers dude! My point is, exaggeration in any direction can lead to bad things, let's not plant in to oblivion because it's trendy, reason is the key.     

It seems to me that if every person on the planet is attached to the fact that he planted at least 1 or 2 trees during his life, it would qualitatively be able to change life on the planet. We need to take care of more than one city, such as new York, we need to do it all over the world, because the Earth is our common home.

I don't think I really even read the initial post.  My bad.

Trees are nice and they make a more pleasant surrounding for most people.  That in and of itself is adequate reason to try have them.  One does not need a bunch of pseudo-scientific (at best) hype about 'carbon footprint' and general virtue signaling which is disgustingly obvious a phony.

It is better to just make good engineering decisions about how to use trees for what they are good for and try to minimize the negative aspects of them of which there are plenty.  The disadvantages are even greater when trying to dense-pack the plebs into UN Agenda 21 'human habitats'.

The shade effect of trees is great.  One can achieve that with awnings which capture rain-water and they can house solar panels (if/when economically feasible) as well.  My current house has a lot of concrete and awnings over most of the property.  That has it's advantages as well, and in my current location especially.  I've got some modest sized trees in barrels (which makes me feel like I am torturing them), and one large shade tree which, sadly, I'm going to need to get rid of for certain development work.  In another decade it really would be creating a genuine hazard to life and limb for both myself and my neighbors.

It is worth note that trees themselves are a significant detriment to smaller plants.  They get big in order to maximize their gather of solar energy so they starve out everything below them, or try to.  What most 'modern eductated' people fail to realize is that if you cut a tree, a ton of other plants below it start to grow like crazy.  Very little solar energy ever touches bare ground in any circumstance.  So-called 'clear cutting' does NOT leave a lifeless piece of ground for more than about a week (unless it is followed up by dosing with defoliants which is common and is, in my opinion, sort of a problem.)  Logging tends to promote 'biodiversity' since it gives environments for 'fringe' plants and animals to live for a while until the forest grows back again.

Omg, the other day I was thinking about how the tress also destroyes the concrete, and they recently fixed this block because of it. But I never thought of the fact that the concrete requires a large input of energy that increases the carbon dioxide. I will take some pictures of some of the things I talked about here.

God Bless, Move Forward!

The trees will make beautiful stumps in a few decades and the wood can be used for human purposes.

Trees have a nasty tenancy to damage concrete of which NYC has an abundance as the roots grow.  But that just creates more jobs for people tearing up the sidewalk and re-doing it.

Concrete itself requires quite a large input of energy which will increase the 'carbon footprint'.  That would be a negative if CO2 had anything to do with 'global warming', but the whole 'man-made global climate change' thing is a laughable hoax promulgated by, among others, the multinational energy companies themselves who's board-members thought up the scheme decades ago in order to consolidate, magnify, and solidify the power they'd amassed during the industrial revolution.

Yes, trees are very important and we need more of it. But due to what's happening, forest fires everywhere trees are being burned and by any means will really affect our planet. Trees make the air we breathe, it is the lungs of our planet filtering the good ones and expelling what is not needed.

That was a lot to munch on and quite frankly I haven't looked it up yet. I would say that it's always good to plant trees but I agree that we probably can no longer grow enough of them to absorb all that co2. It's probably just not trees that act like carbon sink anyway, if these people are really want to reduce the levels in the atmosphere, they'd have to find another way.

Also, I saw people joking that Greta Thunberg should be sent to the Philippines. How dare that volcano spew greenhouse gases!

We need billions of trees to fill up gap due to fire in Amazon and Australia forests. It’s last wake up calls from nature to plant trees that can inhale toxic gases while giving us fresh air to breath. Tree are free tools supplied by nature, all they want is don’t cut them to work for us.

just some fun facts
"The average carbon absorbtion was 88 pounds per tree per year. (By contrast, the average American is responsible for emitting about 44,000 pounds of carbon annually."

that means each person needs 500 tree's.
a family of 4 ends up needing 2000 tree's. im not sure people actually have roofspace for 2000 trees

as for the topics 1m tree's.that only offsets about 2,000 people.
new yorks 8mill population =4,000,000,000.. yep 4 billion tree's needed just for new york.

with a 2 metre square space per tree, requires 8000km² offset space
new york living area is only 800km²

meaning it needs 10x more land then the land people live on just to offset new york

.. in short for the lung health risk. its easier to let the oil/coal reserves deplete(as they will anyway in this century) and shift to renewables and use electric cars to bring down the carbon used.. rather than it is to find enough land to plant tree's

..
i personally think trees are great. but more for thewildlife and water cycle arena. climate change should concentrate on water cycle for the climate and as a separate project reducing emissions for the lung health. planting trees will never offset emissions at this level. and carbon is not a big player in the temperature arena. water is. so planting tree's projects need to actually understand why a rainforest is called a rain forest and not a carbon forest. and truly understand some of the numbers needed to even make a change

by the way. tree's in urban area's dont help the water cycle.

We all should plant more trees Plant trees save the environment We need to plant trees on the roof or courtyard of our house for the benefit of the tree. We take oxygen from the tree use it as fuel the tree gives us shade protects us from the heat of the sun Also trees protect the beauty of our city You need to plant more trees and take care of it.

Qatar is so hot its capital city now has air conditioning OUTSIDE to protect people from summer temperatures which soar to a blistering 115°F. While trees can do that for free, 24/7/365 and without requiring any maintenance. If we don't plant trees on emergency basis we will have to do such artificial and expensive treatments globally. Sadly we are more interested in cutting trees rather planting.

Especially if they are in areas where it'll require more effort to establish a forest. For example a new mangrove forest practically takes care of itself, a new forest in California or Australia would have to be regularly watered for them not to wither and the brush around them constantly trimmed.

I agree, most trees being abandoned after planting trees. Sad but true.  On the other hand once it wss being take csre it has a big impact to our environment. It gives life to be honest. Everytime I see lot of trees I feel calm. Let us plant more trees because without them its very to live since they are the main source of oxygen in this world.

I love to support that idea we should plant more trees to keep the enviroment clean.
The world is so poluted and more trees are being cut down or burn out.

Events like planting 1 million tree in one day are useless as majority of such plantations were not taken care after the event is over. Trees serves as lungs of earth and life on earth is possible only if we have sufficient trees left that can keep the temperature under control.

a UK flight company Ryan air done a study. they realised to offset their carbon emissions they would need to make the UK 12% forest.

by this i do not mean ryan air are some massive aviation company. infact they are a small company. if you add in all other flights around the UK by other flight companies the UK would need to be over 100% forest (more trees than land available
and thats just for flights.
cars and trucks actually combine to produce more co2 than aviation. so to ofset UK numbers forrests would need to be several layers of the land mass of the uk.

but what people keep forgetting is that climate science is about land temperatures. which water vaper controls land temperatures. not carbon.

carbon science on climate is about the percent of heat kept in at the upper atmosphere.. HEAT RISES not falls.
but guess what

carbon is not causing it to get warmer up there


its the ground level temperature control that is the 'risk' and water has more effect n the ground to cloud area

carbon at ground level is not a temperature of ground level killer. its a lung health killer.. water (ice or drought) is the concern of ground level

I think planting trees is always good, whether you're trying to say it's to reduce co2 or for shade, etc. The problem is when it's not properly planned. For example the trees should be planted in areas where they are expected to not be disturbed for decades. No point in planting them near road that might be widened a few years later.

I also share Darker's apprehension about maintenance. It should be part of the planning otherwise it'll be like buying a kid a bunny for Easter - it'll be dead within a week.

Well NY is pretty woke so it's unsurprising if all this is one big virtue signal visible from space so aliens on Mars can see how good and environmentally-friendly they are.


To be frank the country need any tree planted - it have less than 10% of its original forest up. Unless those trees were planted in an urban areas I believe they'd survive well enough. The problem is the loggers. I remember seeing on the TV that some private reforest projects are choosing to plant trees that could not be used for lumber to discourage loggers.

Well for a project that big, i think they've made studies about where and how to do this huge venture. And i think it's not happening on a single event. It's gradual, planned tree planting. At least there's an initiative, let's give that. As to how it's going to be implemented, let's give them a chance. I'm all for restoring the greenery everywhere.

Not only plant trees but also take care of them. Problem is we plant trees and then abondan them. Almost half of trees plantation went useless because of no care after plantation. If we want to give a good future to our kids we have to plant trees.

If it is from celebrity then their intention of doing this is to get fame not to help the environment,if they want to save nature they won't have any count on number trees to be planted and they will pick the right place to plant trees where they can grow with low or no maintenance.

The problem with these kind of initiatives is that they’re only done to please people in the short term, but no one really thinks of the long term consequences. In my personal opinion people should just not plant trees, instead they should create a community which can plan where it’s most suitable to plant them, who will take care of the trees and once they have answers to these questions then they should go ahead and plant trees.

In 2014, the Philippines won the "Guinness World Record for the Most Tress(sic) Planted Simultaneously (Multiple Locations)."^[1] That happened in one of the country's three major islands, Mindanao. A total of 2,294,629 trees were planted. That was 2.3 million trees! People are smiling proud to have participated and won the award.

I was not!

Putting my neck on the line here, I would say less than 2% of those planted will actually grow into maturity, 70% would die a day or two after due to doing everything wrong right from the start and not caring about it the minute it is done, the rest would be cut for various reasons months later, or be eaten by the cows and goats and other herbivorous animals, and so on.

That's what happens when people are planting trees just for the sake of it! They're not even tree or nature lovers!  

[1] http://minda.gov.ph/news/121-guinness-world-record-for-the-most-tress-planted-simultaneously-multiple-locations

many towns plant tree's in urban area's for the whole co2 mindset.

the only issue is that it only sorts out co2 in that area. so a parking lot with loads of trees wont really affect co2 levels 2 miles away.

tree's planted alongside roads help more.
the example in OP is not in a densely driven area of new york so its not really a good location anyway

however trees in this situation are not helping climate change. its just improving lung health

oh and by the way. most scientists are more worried about the nitrogen issues of lung health which tree's dont help with. so even the lung health issue is not solved by trees.

Here in NYC there's an initiative of planting one million trees. And I'm all for planting more trees, but not just for the sake of it, and for the celebrity behind it to feel good about herself. If a home owner plants a tree there's a lot of planning involved. They analyze the perfect spot, how it matches the surrounding, if it's needed, etc. But in this situation it just plant one million trees for the heck of it. Cut a square, throw a bunch of dirt, the spot doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's in front of a stoop creating multiple bottlenecks in a busy block. The dirt gets all over, and half of the trees die anyway.

It really shows that human nature of not really thinking about your surrounding. In this case instead of causing pollution it's trees.

Random example, though not the best because if not a busy sidewalk.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6757113,-73.9857819,3a,75y,242.04h,83.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suHVYMwoyioFEW5PQqyvkfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192