Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
1488 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 334


  Reply # 1894966 3-Nov-2017 20:56
Send private message

If everybody in NZ planted one tree every two weeks, we can make it. But how many in this thread have ever even planted a tree and then managed to keep it alive?

bmt

443 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131


  Reply # 1895143 4-Nov-2017 09:49
One person supports this post
Send private message

The new government, both post election and pre-election (as Labour) are doing a very poor job in explaining some of their policies, this being a perfect example. Nobody knows wtf the plan is - 

 

Who is going to plant them? What trees - natives, pine, something else? When is it going to start? Where are they going to be planted? How is it going to be implement? And why is this being done - as previously posted, is this ramping up our forestry service so they can be harvested, is it to act as a carbon sink and offset our emissions, or both?

 

Other policies like water levy and a lot of things associated with the tax working group - I think a lot of the ideas are sound but they let the message get completely overrun and so you have a situation where the farming industry was getting really hysterical and really driving the rural vs urban divide, when in fact they were full of BS. Labour just didn't communicate effectively.


551 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 108


  Reply # 1895333 4-Nov-2017 20:46
Send private message

Not all politicians can handle the rule of t(h)ree adequately. So don't ponder. innocentwink





Nope, English isn't my mother tongue. But that's why I'm here. smile


652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


  Reply # 1895579 5-Nov-2017 18:46
One person supports this post
Send private message

kryptonjohn:

 

frankv:

 

frednz:

 

Well, perhaps benefits should not continue to be paid if beneficiaries are refusing to take up positions that they are capable of doing? Shouldn't the supervision of people on unemployment benefits be stepped up a notch?

 

Another possibility is for "suitable" prisoners to be selected for this work instead of them being so unproductive day after day.

 

 

We should not be in the position of compelling people to work. Given that there are benefits to the country as well as to businesses from planting these trees, those benefits should be shared with the people doing the work.... i.e. the pay should be enough that people *want* the jobs.

 

If *you* don't want to go and do the job for the money offered, you're not in a position to judge anyone else who makes the same decision.

 

 

All fair comment. However if there's work available to be done and beneficiaries or prisoners turn it down then perhaps there should be consequences for them in reduced benefits or privileges.

 

 

We dont need beneficiaries or prisoners to do this job.

 

The forestry industry currently employs 20,000+, and is quite capable of doing the job.

 

Then there's all the farmers that plant forestry blocks as a long term 'retirement' investment, and to utilise land that cant be used for anything else...

 

There may be a current shortage of seedlings (debatable), but 6-12 months of growing seedlings in current nurseries will solve that problem.

 

All these comments about not having enough people to plant 1 billion trees in 10 years is just so much sore loser national party voters trying to find fault with anything and everything the new government is planning to do, that's all.  Nothing to see here folks, move along.


Aussie
4235 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1895583 5-Nov-2017 19:05
One person supports this post
Send private message

MaxLV:

 

not having enough people to plant 1 billion trees in 10 years is just so much sore loser national party voters trying to find fault with anything and everything the new government is planning to do, that's all. 

 

 

 

 

Lol..

 

I don't vote in NZ...

 

But who's paying these forestry workers? I have a mate in the industry in NZ... They don't work for nothing, trees aren't free. What are the trees? Where are they being planted? Who's cutting them down later, and who gets the profit if/when they are timber use trees? Who gets whatever problem/benefit if they're not?

 

 

 

I haven't seen any answers.

 

 

 

Like I said, I don't vote in NZ, I'm just being realistic.


2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 970

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1895609 5-Nov-2017 19:42
Send private message

blakamin:

MaxLV:


not having enough people to plant 1 billion trees in 10 years is just so much sore loser national party voters trying to find fault with anything and everything the new government is planning to do, that's all. 



 


Lol..


I don't vote in NZ...


But who's paying these forestry workers? I have a mate in the industry in NZ... They don't work for nothing, trees aren't free. What are the trees? Where are they being planted? Who's cutting them down later, and who gets the profit if/when they are timber use trees? Who gets whatever problem/benefit if they're not?


 


I haven't seen any answers.


 


Like I said, I don't vote in NZ, I'm just being realistic.





He's not paying attention. The forestry industry is currently short of workers and unable to fill vacancies. So planting another billion trees needs a bit more than a politician's day so.

652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


  Reply # 1895741 5-Nov-2017 22:40
Send private message

blakamin:

 

MaxLV:

 

not having enough people to plant 1 billion trees in 10 years is just so much sore loser national party voters trying to find fault with anything and everything the new government is planning to do, that's all. 

 

 

 

 

Lol..

 

I don't vote in NZ...

 

But who's paying these forestry workers? I have a mate in the industry in NZ... They don't work for nothing, trees aren't free. What are the trees? Where are they being planted? Who's cutting them down later, and who gets the profit if/when they are timber use trees? Who gets whatever problem/benefit if they're not?

 

 

 

I haven't seen any answers.

 

 

 

Like I said, I don't vote in NZ, I'm just being realistic.

 



Well I guess their current employers (who already pay them to plant trees) Forestry workers dont just cut down trees you know.
The trees will most likely be Pinus Radiata.
There's plenty of land available, just ask all the farmers who plant trees on their land that's not suitable for anything else.
Then there's government land that's being used and allocated for forestry.

 

Forestry workers will cut them down.
The profit goes to the owners of the trees, in this case the government. You do know that forestry is third most profitable part of the NZ economy dont you? 
Any thing else you'd like to know?

 

National lost the election, the Labour/NZF/Greens coalition won, isn't it about time you started being realistic and moved on?

 

 


908 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 133


  Reply # 1895771 6-Nov-2017 08:02
Send private message

1eStar: If everybody in NZ planted one tree every two weeks, we can make it. But how many in this thread have ever even planted a tree and then managed to keep it alive?

 

 

 

I've planted hundreds of trees. On residential properties I've owned and later on lifestyle blocks, as far as I know most of them are still living.


2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1895774 6-Nov-2017 08:09
Send private message

MaxLV:

 

Forestry workers will cut them down.
The profit goes to the owners of the trees, in this case the government. You do know that forestry is third most profitable part of the NZ economy dont you? 
Any thing else you'd like to know?

 

National lost the election, the Labour/NZF/Greens coalition won, isn't it about time you started being realistic and moved on?

 

 

Given that this is touted as a green environmental reduce-our-emissions thing, I think it's a misrepresentation. Cutting down trees to plant new trees does little for the environment even if it is "sustainable". Planting new trees to cut them down in 30 years is a one-off benefit.

 

It's really nothing to do with party politics; trust me, I'm not a National supporter.

 

 

 

 

 

Tangentially; I wonder whether plastic bags are in fact a good carbon sink. They carbon they hold won't be released for thousands of years.

 

 


655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 273

Subscriber

  Reply # 1895776 6-Nov-2017 08:17
Send private message

frankv:

 

 Tangentially; I wonder whether plastic bags are in fact a good carbon sink. They carbon they hold won't be released for thousands of years.

 

 

 

Nope. The best carbon sink's to leave the oil in the ground.

 

6-8 kg of carbon is released to produce each kg of plastic depending on the feedstock.

 

Around 7% of the world's oil production's used for plastic.


5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2084


  Reply # 1895811 6-Nov-2017 09:58
Send private message

 I'm a National supporter.  I've planted a lot of trees in my life (for an amateur).  More than 10,000.  I can see merit in the 1b trees project but I am sceptical in the absence of info.  My scepticism doesn't arise from the fact it's a brainchild of the new government, but from logistical constraints. 

 

Also the general nature of government departments ... I'd be concerned about an increase in input costs and mixed quality delivery ... as per insulation subsidies.





Mike

3391 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 923


  Reply # 1895818 6-Nov-2017 10:16
One person supports this post
Send private message

MaxLV:

 

There's plenty of land available, just ask all the farmers who plant trees on their land that's not suitable for anything else.
Then there's government land that's being used and allocated for forestry.

 

Forestry workers will cut them down.
The profit goes to the owners of the trees, in this case the government. You do know that forestry is third most profitable part of the NZ economy dont you? 

 

 

 

The government wont be the owner of these trees, ( well not most of them anyway)

 

Over the next 10 years, the commercial pinus industry will harvest around 650-,000- 700,000 ha of pine forest ( this is the big lump of forests that were planted from the 1990s ( average age of 28 years)

 

Of the "billion" trees, 70% are likely to basically be replanting what gets cut down,

 

the remaining 300,000 ha ( or 300 million trees) will likely slightly expanded commercial planting ( I'm guessing that the govt will help the industry with some helpful tax incentives) and some planting on Marginal ( likely Maori land)

 

This is simply government policy to favour the forestry industry -

 

Their big fear is that without this help the forestry boys ( who are mostly multinationals) will not replant, but just hock off the land for farming and NZ's GHG would go through the roof- not a good look for a green supported Govt,


5225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1120

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1895821 6-Nov-2017 10:20
Send private message

frednz:

 

NZ has set itself a target of planting 100 million trees per year in a "Billion Trees" planting programme.

 

Now that means we need to plant about 274,000 trees per day, every day of the year.

 

Do you think this is possible when you consider ground preparation and the availability of such a large number of trees?

 

How many people would you need to have continuously working on this project?

 

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11936301

 

Forestry
Re-establish the New Zealand Forestry Service, and planting 100 million trees per year in a Billion Trees Planting Programme.

 

 

 



Assuming you have the seedlings, you suppose can plant 50-75 / hour. I have no idea. It might actually be 200 / hour, but one per minute and a bit seems reasonable as a starting point. In an 8 hour day one person could plant 400+ trees. In 260 M-F working days in a year that person could plant at *least* 104,000-ish trees. A thousand people doing that is 10 million trees. Ten thousand people doing that is well over 100 million trees. 

So if 50,000 people did it two days / week......it would happen with bells on. Sounds like a good scheme. I'd walk the hills for two days / week and plant trees. Sign me up. 

If you paid $20 / hour to the ten thousand people for those M-F 8-hour days for a year...that would be $416M in wages, plus whatever the trees cost. We spent $100M selling off part of the energy companies despite most voters opposing the idea in the referendum......so $500m / year for planting 100 million trees sounds like good investment money. Eventually they become a renewable resource and habitat, as well as a carbon sink. Hopefully they aren't all pinus radiata and we plant a few million kaori and totora.   

Of course, if you can plant 100 trees / hour then the wage cost is cut in half to just over $200m. 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


18316 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5246

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1895838 6-Nov-2017 10:28
Send private message

Linuxluver:

 

frednz:

 

NZ has set itself a target of planting 100 million trees per year in a "Billion Trees" planting programme.

 

Now that means we need to plant about 274,000 trees per day, every day of the year.

 

Do you think this is possible when you consider ground preparation and the availability of such a large number of trees?

 

How many people would you need to have continuously working on this project?

 

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11936301

 

Forestry
Re-establish the New Zealand Forestry Service, and planting 100 million trees per year in a Billion Trees Planting Programme.

 

 

 



Assuming you have the seedlings, you can plant 50-75 / hour. In an 8 hour day one person could plant 400+ trees. In 260 M-F working days in a year that person could plant at *least* 104,000-ish trees. A thousand people doing that is 10 million trees. Ten thousand people doing that is well over 100 million trees. 

So if 50,000 people did it two days / week......it would happen with bells on. Sounds like a good scheme. I'd walk the hills for two days / week and plant trees. Sign me up. 

If you paid $20 / hour to the ten thousand people for those M-F 8-hour days for a year...that would be $416M in wages, plus whatever the trees cost. We spent $100M selling off part of the energy companies despite most voters opposing the idea in the referendum......so $500m / year for planting 100 million trees sounds like good investment money. Eventually they become a renewable resource and habitat, as well as a carbon sink. Hopefully they aren't all pinus radiata and we plant a few million kaori and totora.   

 

 

This, of course, does not take into account the cost for water, labour for maintenance, and dealing with the ground after the trees have been chopped, to prepare it for another planting, pest control, fungus and bacterial control, etc.

 

 


5225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1120

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1895839 6-Nov-2017 10:31
Send private message

wellygary:

 

 

 

This is simply government policy to favour the forestry industry -

 

Their big fear is that without this help the forestry boys ( who are mostly multinationals) will not replant, but just hock off the land for farming and NZ's GHG would go through the roof - not a good look for a green supported Govt,

 

 

I agree. National's gutting of the ETS effectively undermined the value of re-planting. It made it more economic to just strip the resource when mature and then flog off the land (or walk away with the profits). Just one more way National was worse than useless on climate change. The list is long. All talk....and do the opposite. 

The new government is returning to a necessary starting point of actually supporting regional industry and the national economy....and the need to sequester CO2. 

It's all National ever had to do....and they refused. Good riddance to them. I'm continually amazed anyone thinks they were competent managers of anything. They clearly were not. 



 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.