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

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1889468 25-Oct-2017 17:52

wellygary: A good Canuck can plant north of 1000 trees per day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3Pdg2Xq5Hz00lfJfKvsdBkq/tree-planting-canada

I imagine the planting rates in nz are similar, so 300 people should be able to plant 275,000 tree per day....

I knew my calculator figures were wrong!

MightyApe

You will find anything you want at MightyApe (affiliate link).

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1889470 25-Oct-2017 17:57

networkn:

Maybe we could get some of our unemployed and less dangerous criminals involved in it? Maybe some of our misguided youth?

In the 1930s, vast areas of land were planted in Pinus radiata by relief workers. The largest tract was the 188,000-hectare Kāingaroa forest, the largest plantation forest in the world. As the major forests matured, processing industries such as the Kinleith Mill at Tokoroa and the Tasman Mill at Kawerau were established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_in_New_Zealand

Tinkerisk

3046 posts

Uber Geek

#1889492 25-Oct-2017 19:02

There might be a slight difference between 'planting' and 'seeding.'

- NET: FTTH, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs, ipPBX
- SRV: HA server cluster, 0.1PB storage capacity on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1889502 25-Oct-2017 19:45

pom532:

UHD:

Hmm, no suggestion of where they plan to plant these trees? If they want to triple the forestry industry in NZ then someone needs to offer up some significant land somewhere.

I heard something on the radio about using DOC and Maori land and that they also want to plant native forest as a carbon sink

Why not grass? I hear it is a more efficient carbon sink.

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1889511 25-Oct-2017 19:59

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.

tdgeek

28587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1889515 25-Oct-2017 20:16

IcI:

frednz: ... Now wouldn't it be good if NZ could get 1.5 million people together at the one time! Perhaps the huge population of India ...

There is your disconnect. Google results currently state the population of India is 1.3 Billion. So they got 1% of the population to come together at the same time for the same goal. Getting 1% of the population together surely is a lot easier than 25%, no matter which country. While I would love to have many more trees in NZ, getting 1% together for this goal would be a very good start.

Thats what I hate about the inter webs, insults. Its not a disconnect. India and NZ are different worlds. A public campaign, supported by the Govt would be great. Carbon. Climate change. Making a difference. If some planted one tree on their property or others ventured to plant dozens, there needs to be an embracement, life isn't just about a pay packet, a movie, Kim Kardashian, or Instagram

wsnz

640 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1889551 25-Oct-2017 21:00

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?

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1889554 25-Oct-2017 21:08

kryptonjohn:

@frankv

If they can make a return on investment then common sense says they would pay more and if it's not profitable common sense says they won't.

FWIW foresty workers get paid about mid $30Ks for trainees and experienced workers $50k+

That's not bad pay isn't it?

Conversely, if they can make more profit by paying less, then obviously they'll do that. And common greed says more profit is good.

It's obviously bad pay. If it was good (relative to the risks and hours), it would attract enough people.

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1889559 25-Oct-2017 21:17

wsnz:

I'm not sure what the billion trees programme is intended to do? Is it to reinvigorate the economy?

[snip]

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

Agreed. The billion trees programme, and especially NZ's part in it, reeks of a feel-good do-nothing campaign. 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. Nothing's changed.

debo

296 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1889569 25-Oct-2017 21:28

We don't need to spend or do anything. All we have to do is stop paying people to remove wilding pines.

frednz

1452 posts

Uber Geek

#1889576 25-Oct-2017 21:41

https://www.nzfoa.org.nz/news/foa-news/foa-media-releases-2017/1578-201017foanews-1

The above link is to the site of the NZ Forest Owners Association (President Peter Clark).

Here are some extracts from the above page which answer a few of the questions raised in this thread:

The Forest Owners Association says the priority put on new forest plantings by New Zealand First entering the coalition presents an enormous challenge to the new government and industry alike.

“The Ministry for the Environment Report yesterday painted a gloomy picture of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emission status. Getting back to more trees being planting than harvested is vital.”

Peter Clark says it will not be easy to get planting up to the levels the new government is thinking of.

“The nurseries will take time to gear up production and there is a chronic shortage of seasonal labour, especially in planting, in our sector already.”

It's obvious that more trees need to be planted than are harvested, and this fact is acknowledged on the above page.

debo

296 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1889577 25-Oct-2017 21:41

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.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1889605 25-Oct-2017 21:51

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.

I'm no expert...

I remember a Country Calendar episode (years ago) about pine plantations. It had a clip of forestry workers on a hill plant the pinus radiata seedlings, all they had was a grubber and a bag/pack on their back full of the seedlings. They used the grubber to cut a hole in the ground, dropped a seedling in the hole, and used their boot to push the earth around the seedling. It took them 15-20 seconds to plant each seedling.

This was on a hillside that had already had been clear felled of the previous pine tree crop.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1889609 25-Oct-2017 21:56

Tinkerisk:

There might be a slight difference between 'planting' and 'seeding.'

They dont use seeds. The seedlings are grown in a nursery from seeds to seedling size, which are then planted by forestry workers.

Tinkerisk

3046 posts

Uber Geek

#1889622 25-Oct-2017 22:15

MaxLV:

Tinkerisk:

There might be a slight difference between 'planting' and 'seeding.'

They dont use seeds. The seedlings are grown in a nursery from seeds to seedling size, which are then planted by forestry workers.

For me it's totally clear. My comment was replied to the Cessna pilot ;-)

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