Submitted by filosoful t3_y7ey3k in Futurology
Bewaretheicespiders t1_isur90x wrote
Environmental theater. When the goal is planting trees and not growing trees. It can succeed, but it requires someone in charge who 1-understands the science behind it and 2-has some accountability for the results. Which is difficult because it takes decades of care.
ScagWhistle t1_isv0pvf wrote
But that would require the scientists to be in charge of the government... which is a brilliant idea.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_isv7mff wrote
No no no. Have the government pay the private enterprise for results. Dont pay for planting a tree, pay for a tree actually growing there. And dont give 1 contract, give 2-3 competing contract.
Its the same issue for roads, they pay to pave a road and it barely last because they pay for the road to be paved, and not for the road to last.
Prince_Ire t1_isvemuz wrote
Turns out, paying for the lowest bidder doesn't necessarily mean you get quality results.
hatchway t1_isw14n0 wrote
In project management we have a principle that you can generally only prioritize one out of speed, quality, or budget. A good, experienced project team can get you two of them, while a miracle can get you all three.
[deleted] t1_iswsvd9 wrote
[removed]
hatchway t1_isyo60y wrote
Correct! I figure I can accelerate one without risking the others. Accelerating two strongly risks the third.
I'm fairly handy with tools, materials, and software so DIY is my version of "cheap and quality". Still can't be too slow, though, or it risks household tension from too many unfinished tasks (lol)
Bomamanylor t1_isxamra wrote
Procurement attorney here. This is so incredibly true that the government has to actively encourage contracting officers not to issue LPTA (lowest price technically acceptable) solicitations. It was a whole initiative a few years ago.
These contracts can work, and better than running it in-house (using gov’t employees), but you really have to write your contracts carefully.
[deleted] t1_isvaqu0 wrote
[removed]
Firebrand-Xana t1_isxukqe wrote
Why would the government want results? All it wants is a problem people are willing to spend cash on. Then it waits for its failed project to fail, and asks for cash again.
Adam_is_Nutz t1_isvqp88 wrote
As a scientist, trust me, you don't want that
PO0tyTng t1_isw2c8r wrote
Scientists should absolutely dictate policy. Science is the culmination of trial and error.
You sir, need to reconsider your viewpoint. I say this as a scientist.
Glass_Front t1_isw9kjy wrote
There's a difference between scientists and science dictating policy, and scientists being in control of the government. As much as I love science, it and statecraft are two very different fields, and someone being good at the former in no way means they will be good at the latter.
CriticalUnit t1_iswpjii wrote
> statecraft
I think you're mixing up international diplomacy vs domestic policy.
You don't need statecraft for policy, just the majority of votes.
Firebrand-Xana t1_isxveh6 wrote
We should get scientists to move near areas that require an informed populace to vote on stuff. The populace will be more informed, and less sane.
IrishToHaveABeer t1_isvt90t wrote
“People are idiots” will be on the money of my technocracy.
ddrcrono t1_isvxjdr wrote
Just have the contracts written out where the pay / incentives are over a longer term rather than being a lump sum. 95% of humanity's problems are that the terms we think in and our focus is too narrow / short-term like we're still living in the jungle and have 45 year life spans or something.
German_Not_German t1_isvw4x4 wrote
Oh my sweet summer child you are not familiar with academia at all. It makes the political scene look sane.
Koda_20 t1_isvwo34 wrote
An ironically this seems to be what half of Reddit thinks LOL
hatchway t1_isw3qso wrote
Gardener / urban farmer here. You can't just put a random baby tree in dirt and expect it to thrive, especially with heavily depleted or polluted soil (which I imagine they're planting in). Baby trees are also extremely sensitive to changes in temperature and humidity, to the extent that about 3/4 of the ones I plant are guaranteed to die without continuous attention. Not possible for a whole forest.
The answer isn't to plant baby trees - it's to spread tree seeds, if possible with mulch and light tilling / harrowing. In my experience, plants that grow from seed have a much better chance in a low care / unsupervised situation, because they'lll adapt to the surrounding moisture, fertility, PH balance, and micro-organisms right from sprouting.
remi_pan t1_iswrm37 wrote
The article has a similar conclusion:
In fact, many forest ecologists say creating space to allow nature to do its thing is usually a better approach to restoring forests thanplanting. “Allowing nature to choose which species predominate … allowsfor local adaptation and higher functional diversity,” argues oneadvocate, Robin Chazdon of the University of Connecticut, in her book Second Growth. For mangroves, Wetlands International now recommendsabandoning widespread planting and instead creating areas of slackwater along coastlines, where mangroves can naturally reseed and grow.
hatchway t1_isyq3a5 wrote
The Hidden Lives of Trees dives deeper into the mechanics of forest ecology and this is 100% in agreement with its insights.
One of the issues to be aware of with allowing re-growth, though, is that certain species tend to absolutely dominate in clear-cut situations, so you need to selectively harvest to allow partial shade to exist.
Douglas Fir, for example, grows super-fast in sunlight, so most second-growth forest you see around here (western Washington) is like 60-95% Doug. Monoculture forests are bad because insects and diseases can jump from tree to tree much more easily, and different species accommodate different environment conditions better (allowing a portion of the forest to hold groundwater during droughts, for example).
However, this is better than no trees, and the issue generally solves itself overtime as species that grow better in shade (hemlock, maple, cedar) start to sprout and grow to full size, giving a diverse forest.
Just need to be careful, because sun-grown Dougs (and many other trees) are softer and spongier than shade-grown counterparts. Far less resistant to fire, bugs, and fungus... meaning there's a decent chance a careless accident can destroy a second-growth Doug-dominant forest before other species have the chance to start sharing the space. (Forest Dreams, Forest Nightmares covers forest succession as it applies to PNW forestry and it's fascinating, if a little more dense and academic)
Despite those caveats, this approach is still superior to planting baby trees raised in greenhouses and utterly lacking an "immune system" for the soil and climate in the particular spot they're planted.
Clearly I have a lot to say on this, but I'm too stupid to be a scientist and too lazy to podcast, so I'm stuck making Reddit comments.
galspanic t1_isvkqct wrote
What they need is tree farms - those things are worthless if the trees die.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments