New Zealand plans to plant 100 million trees per year: Is this possible?

Forums › Off topic › New Zealand plans to plant 100 million trees per year: Is this possible?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1889630 25-Oct-2017 23:15

debo:

20% of New Zealand will be invaded by wilding conifer forests within 20 years without rapid action. Wilding conifers currently cover more than 1.8 million ha of land, and are spreading at an estimated rate of 5% a year.

I was waiting for someone to mention this^^^. All we have to do is ignore the destruction of the original ecosystem by these conifers, and we have probably met or at least come close to the goal of 100mil trees per year.

Assuming they are spreading on the North Island central plateau, It will be a problem if they cover the Army bombing range. If a fire starts, the whole lot will have to be left to burn. As it would be too dangerous to fight the fire due to unexploded bombs.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1889637 26-Oct-2017 01:49

jaymz:
We are planning on planting ~200 trees this spring as a shelter-belt on my parents farm. #DoingOurBit #GreenNZ

Already got 1400. Reckon I'm covered.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1889639 26-Oct-2017 01:59

bmt:
Is anybody that's posted in this thread an expert on this subject? Even just slightly clued up? I know I'm not, and I haven't seen any specifics on who/what/when/where/how/why this is being done YET. And there's already people having a huge wah about it lol.

Who says we need qualified forestry workers to plant these trees? Just because you don't think it can be done (based on what expertise and experience?) doesn't make it so. Just because you don't think it's worth it doesn't make it so. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but if it's based on nothing other than "I voted National and this is a Labour/Greens policy so I don't like it", then your opinion ain't worth much eh.

Not sure that I would claim to be an expert, but I studied forestry for 3 years as part of my land management degree and used to manage about 3,000 acres of mixed woodland.

It could be done I suppose, with a limitless budget and on easily accessed sites. It would be a significant undertaking.
I'd be more interested to see what the commercial output would be. If it is another of these crackpot ideas to return NZ to some sort of preserved in Aspic pre_human states rather than an actual commercial project, I would think there are better ways to use the considerable resources it would consume.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1889642 26-Oct-2017 02:22

wsnz:

Presumably we are talking about 100M pinus radiata for milling, not for any specific environmental benefit given there are much more appropriate species for that purpose.

I'm not sure what the billion trees programme is intended to do? Is it to reinvigorate the economy? The average age of harvested trees is 30 years so economic benefits will be quite some time away, and there's already a huge amount of harvesting already occurring across NZ that fulfils existing domestic requirements.

Perhaps the government envisages processing occurring here, rather than in other countries where we currently ship harvested wood to like China. But with relatively high labour costs, and set to increase substantially over the next few years, we are not competitive. We also lack the infrastructure for processing, and without a defined market for our high-cost processed trees, private industry will not invest.

Does the government need to own forestry operations again?

What the long-term strategic objective here? Is there one?

Stuff Last updated 05:00, October 22 2017.

It was once of our biggest employers. Now the incoming coalition government is to recreate the New Zealand forestry service.

And it's understood the service will be headquartered in Rotorua – one of the first government departments to ever be based outside the three biggest cities.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98120823/jacinda-arderns-coalition-government-to-bring-back-the-forestry-service

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1889646 26-Oct-2017 06:52

frankv:

These aren't *extra* trees being planted. A bunch of 30-y-o Pinus radiata will be cut down to make paper, and they'll be replaced by some seedlings, to be chopped down again in 30 years.

Is that official? I was under the impression that it was a native replanting programme. The press says:

There is an environmental element to the plan, as forests planted on Department of Conservation land will be native trees acting as permanent "carbon sinks" to counter climate change.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1889652 26-Oct-2017 07:18

SaltyNZ:

frankv:

These aren't *extra* trees being planted. A bunch of 30-y-o Pinus radiata will be cut down to make paper, and they'll be replaced by some seedlings, to be chopped down again in 30 years.

Is that official? I was under the impression that it was a native replanting programme. The press says:

There is an environmental element to the plan, as forests planted on Department of Conservation land will be native trees acting as permanent "carbon sinks" to counter climate change.

That's my interpretation. Nowhere does it say that the 100M trees planted will be natives nor that they will be planted on DoC land, nor that they will be new plantings.

Looks to me like someone has seen this as a convenient publicity stunt to boost NZ's Clean Green image, estimated how many trees we were going to plant each year, then set that as a target.

I'd be happy to see this contradicted with evidence.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MurrayM

2502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1889671 26-Oct-2017 08:23

So do we know if these new trees are to be harvested in 30 years time?

If the idea is to use them solely as a carbon sink then I don't see any point in harvesting them in the future, as this removes the carbon sink that you spent so much effort creating and you'll just have to turn around and do it all over again (assuming we need carbon sinks in the future, maybe we'll all be using nice clean power by then).

If the idea is to harvest them then I guess you'll want to plant from saplings and have them all in nice neat rows to make harvesting easier (I remember seeing old film clips of hundreds of workers tramping over hillsides planting saplings too). But if the idea is just to create a carbon sink then I guess this isn't so important, so can't you just sprinkle seeds all over the place and just let them grow wherever the seed falls?

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1889673 26-Oct-2017 08:27

If it's a sink then they'd be better off with grass and let it naturally overgrow with gorse and then native scrub. Pines are a bit of an ecological pest. If pines for harvesting then yeah as you say they need to be planted in a pattern to allow the maximum harvest.

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#1889683 26-Oct-2017 08:52

MurrayM:

So do we know if these new trees are to be harvested in 30 years time?

If the idea is to use them solely as a carbon sink then I don't see any point in harvesting them in the future, as this removes the carbon sink that you spent so much effort creating and you'll just have to turn around and do it all over again (assuming we need carbon sinks in the future, maybe we'll all be using nice clean power by then).

If the idea is to harvest them then I guess you'll want to plant from saplings and have them all in nice neat rows to make harvesting easier (I remember seeing old film clips of hundreds of workers tramping over hillsides planting saplings too). But if the idea is just to create a carbon sink then I guess this isn't so important, so can't you just sprinkle seeds all over the place and just let them grow wherever the seed falls?

Actually harvesting and replanting is better from a carbon sink aspect if the wood isn't burnt. Trees can be relatively carbon neutral (not completely they are still getting bigger but the rate that they are getting bigger slows considerably) when they reach maturity. They take in most of the carbon when they are actively growing.

While there is more carbon stored in an old forest, carbon is absorbed faster in an actively growing forest. Cutting down a forest does not automatically release the carbon (all the branches and leaves will decompose and the carbon in them would be released) but the carbon in the timber is locked up until it rots or burnt.

As to the actual planting I would like to see a lot of the marginal farmland returned to native forest, esp those adjacent to existing native forest blocks, as well as new non-pine forestry planted to provide some resilience to our forestry industry. If a pine pest became established we would be screwed.

We need to start thinking longer term high value timbers which can also function as habitats for native species while they are growing.

Species like natives, walnuts, oaks, redwoods ...

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#1889692 26-Oct-2017 09:10

kryptonjohn:

If it's a sink then they'd be better off with grass and let it naturally overgrow with gorse and then native scrub. Pines are a bit of an ecological pest. If pines for harvesting then yeah as you say they need to be planted in a pattern to allow the maximum harvest.

The Aussies did some research and decided that while trees and grass were pretty even as a carbon sink in the early stages, long term trees were 6x better than grass & scrub in their environment.

Pine has many advantages over the alternate options.

Pine grows quickly, and soaks up carbon faster than native forest/regrowth, but all forests plateau and native eventually catches up to sinks roughly the same amount of carbon.

If you turn the harvested pine into buildings/furniture/products, those products become a carbon sink until they are burnt/decompose, which means plantation/harvested wood has a repeating advantage over native/protected wood as a carbon sink. Another reason to build your house out of wood framing not steel.

If pine is unavailable then the alternate is to harvest rain forest in Indonesia/Brazil or to make stuff out of steel or plastic - all of which are bad for the atmosphere (production of plastic & steel relies on oil or coal).

By growing and harvesting pine we help both our economy and the atmosphere, and assist in protecting virgin rain forest and animals in less environmentally conscious countries, so globally speaking, it would be short sighted to plant anything other than wood we intend to harvest.

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#1889695 26-Oct-2017 09:16

tripper1000:

kryptonjohn:

If it's a sink then they'd be better off with grass and let it naturally overgrow with gorse and then native scrub. Pines are a bit of an ecological pest. If pines for harvesting then yeah as you say they need to be planted in a pattern to allow the maximum harvest.

The Aussies did some research and decided that while trees and grass were pretty even as a carbon sink in the early stages, long term trees were 6x better than grass & scrub in their environment.

Pine has many advantages over the alternate options.

Pine grows quickly, and soaks up carbon faster than native forest/regrowth, but all forests plateau and native eventually catches up to sinks roughly the same amount of carbon.

If you turn the harvested pine into buildings/furniture/products, those products become a carbon sink until they are burnt/decompose, which means plantation/harvested wood has a repeating advantage over native/protected wood as a carbon sink. Another reason to build your house out of wood framing not steel.

If pine is unavailable then the alternate is to harvest rain forest in Indonesia/Brazil or to make stuff out of steel or plastic - all of which are bad for the atmosphere (production of plastic & steel relies on oil or coal).

By growing and harvesting pine we help both our economy and the atmosphere, and assist in protecting virgin rain forest and animals in less environmentally conscious countries, so globally speaking, it would be short sighted to plant anything other than wood we intend to harvest.

The problem is if we rely solely on pine if a pest/disease arrives the we are done for in terms of forestry

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#1889737 26-Oct-2017 09:40

blackjack17:

The problem is if we rely solely on pine if a pest/disease arrives the we are done for in terms of forestry

That's not a problem with geographically separated forests and diversification of species. Point is that if you're reforesting, trees you intend to harvest are smarter than trees you don't.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1889823 26-Oct-2017 13:30

https://www.nzfoa.org.nz/news/foa-news/foa-media-releases-2017/1579-261017foanews

The above link is to the latest newsletter from the Forest Owners Association. Here's an extract:

Forest owners say they are looking forward to working with the new Minister of Forests Shane Jones to meet what forest owners call a huge challenge to double the annual forest planting rate.

Forest Owners Association President Peter Clark says the new government’s target of an additional 50,000 hectares of planting a year is ‘optimistic but achievable’.

“For most of the 1990s, the new planting rate was more than 50,000 hectares a year. In 1994 it was 100,000 hectares beyond keeping up with replanting.”

“We’ve been talking with Shane Jones about what can and can’t be achieved and he is in no doubt about some of the difficulties of getting more plantings going after more than a decade of no growth.”

“In particular we do need to build the labour force to do the planting. At the moment we are struggling to plant enough trees to maintain the present area. We hope that Shane Jones being Minister of Regional Development will help in that respect.”

It looks like there could be a lead time of about 2 years before the new planting objectives could start to be achieved.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1890981 26-Oct-2017 20:13

bmt:

Who says we need qualified forestry workers to plant these trees?

From what I've heard, workers can be trained to plant trees fairly quickly without the need for formal qualifications in forestry!

So, if that's the case, shouldn't people who are currently drawing unemployment benefits be told they are needed for the tree planting programme? This would certainly help to reduce the cost of benefit payments.

Why would you want to remain unemployed when there is so much urgent and useful planting work to be done.?

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1890988 26-Oct-2017 20:19

They'll have to do the health and safety stuff for a start. Then they'll need to do the training on spacing, digging and planting the seedlings. All pretty straight forward. Then they'll need to do the hard physical work walking up steep rough ground carrying seedlings and a grubber and planting them. The candidates will also need to pass a drug test to work in forestry. They'll have to be fit and resilient.

Given the chance to sit on their arses smoking dope vs drawing a benefit vs getting up early and doing a hard day's work it doesn't surprise me that they can't get beneficiaries to do this work.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10