I’ll keep my initial estimate of tree planting as “not worth spending much time on that”.
That makes sense to me.
This works feels very complete.
I would say it is very broad, as it covers many of the effects of tree planting. However, I think it is also quite shallow, as it does not go into much depth into any of them. I think it is not necessary to go into greater depth given given the resilience of the mean cost-effectiveness being at best around 1 t/£.
Just a suggestion: this post is kind of hard to read as it is now
I very much agree the post is not very reader-friendly.
so I think it could benefit from something like an executive summary that allows to grasp in a clear and simple way why tree planting is not as effective as one could expect
This footnote illustrates how one could obtain the upper bound for the mean cost-effectiveness of 1 t/£:
The calculation of the best mean of 1 t/£ can be illustrated by considering a net removal of emissions of 39.7 t/ha/year for 50.7 year, and a cost of 1.62 k£/ha.
As for:
there are many interesting things you took into account, like albedo and impact on insects but it feels drowned in an ocean of numbers
In essence:
The cost-effectiveness of tree planting is driven by the existential risk cost-effectiveness, which is perfectly correlated with the cooling cost-effectiveness, as both are directly proportional to the adjusted net removal of CO2e emissions (t/ha/year).
So the net removal of CO2e emissions (t/ha/year), persistence of the intervention (year), and cost (£/ha) seem to be the factors which really matter.
Hi Corentin,
Thanks for the comment!
That makes sense to me.
I would say it is very broad, as it covers many of the effects of tree planting. However, I think it is also quite shallow, as it does not go into much depth into any of them. I think it is not necessary to go into greater depth given given the resilience of the mean cost-effectiveness being at best around 1 t/£.
I very much agree the post is not very reader-friendly.
This footnote illustrates how one could obtain the upper bound for the mean cost-effectiveness of 1 t/£:
As for:
In essence:
So the net removal of CO2e emissions (t/ha/year), persistence of the intervention (year), and cost (£/ha) seem to be the factors which really matter.