Thanks for the report—I’ll keep my initial estimate of tree planting as “not worth spending much time on that”. This works feels very complete.
Just a suggestion: this post is kind of hard to read as it is now, 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 (there are many interesting things you took into account, like albedo and impact on insects but it feels drowned in an ocean of numbers).
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.
Thanks for the report—I’ll keep my initial estimate of tree planting as “not worth spending much time on that”. This works feels very complete.
Just a suggestion: this post is kind of hard to read as it is now, 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 (there are many interesting things you took into account, like albedo and impact on insects but it feels drowned in an ocean of numbers).
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.