NEXT: The Future of Trees
In episode two of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series back in the 1980s, I remember him walking in a forest waxing poetically in a way only a scientist can about the symbiotic relationship between plants and humans. We each excrete gasses that the other depends on. Humans breathe out carbon dioxide that the plants absorb, and […] The article discusses the future of trees, with the author suggesting that the symbiotic relationship between plants and humans is becoming more dependent on each other. This comes as part of a global effort to plant more urban forests, with Tucson, Arizona pledging to plant one million trees by 2020. The Urban Forestry Master Plan in Columbus aims to achieve 40% of its tree canopy by 2050, a goal that could be achieved if the city is half covered in trees by 2030. The author also notes that climate change may offset the demand for trees to combat climate change, with future forests likely to be made up of smaller trees that absorb less carbon dioxide. The article also discusses efforts to protect forests that are under threat and the potential impact on the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. It suggests that extending legal rights to plants could be made easier once it is widely accepted.
Opublikowany : 2 tygodnie temu za pomocą David Staley w
In episode two of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series back in the 1980s, I remember him walking in a forest waxing poetically in a way only a scientist can about the symbiotic relationship between plants and humans. We each excrete gasses that the other depends on. Humans breathe out carbon dioxide that the plants absorb, and they give off the oxygen that we need. But to paraphrase Sagan, this symbiotic relationship is far from equal: “We need the trees much more than they need us.”
This realization may be the main driver for the future of trees. We are more aware than ever of the role trees play in removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and so our dependence on trees will only grow in the future.
There have been a number of initiatives across the globe at “afforestation,” the opposite of deforestation. More trees won’t fully eliminate the problem of excess atmospheric greenhouse gasses, but will certainly help curb these amounts.
As part of this effort at afforestation, we are likely to see more urban forests. In 2020, Tucson, Arizona vowed to plant one million trees by the end of the decade. Tucson joined other cities who have pledged to plant one billion trees. Tucson states that the goal of planting more trees within the city limits is to create more shade and increase heat resistance in the most vulnerable neighborhoods. The benefits of trees to humanity goes well beyond their atmospheric cleansing capabilities.
Columbus, via its Urban Forestry Master Plan—”the first Citywide, strategic plan to invest long-term in Columbus’ trees”—will also see more trees planted in our city. Currently, Columbus’ tree canopy comprises only 22% coverage over the total land area, much lower than comparable cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. The vision of the Master Plan is “to prioritize, preserve, and grow the tree canopy in Columbus equitably across neighborhoods to improve health and quality of life for all residents.”
One goal is to achieve 40% coverage by 2050, which seems to me to be a rather a modest target. What would it mean if the city were half covered in trees by 2030?
One way we might see more trees in an urban setting would be to either build new buildings or retrofit old ones to be covered with trees. Bosco Verticale (“vertical forest”) in Milan offers a model for what a tree-enshrouded high rise might look like.
Our demand for trees to combat climate change might be offset by the effects of climate change on the trees themselves. Researchers at the University of Arizona have devised a model to predict tree growth, and the results do not look promising. Future forests will likely be made up of smaller trees that will absorb less carbon dioxide. Indeed, the researchers predict a 56-91% decline in individual tree growth. The model is looking only at Arizona’s forests, but its implications are stark nevertheless.
Researchers at UC Davis have similarly devised a predictive model for the survivability of forests after drought, and their results are far from optimistic. We will need to grow more forests in those places that are still capable of supporting them.
In addition to planting more trees, there are efforts underway to protect the forests that already exist and that are under threat. The NGO Stop Ecocide International are among the activists petitioning the International Criminal Court to make “ecocide” an arrestable crime. Ecocide—the destruction of the natural environment by deliberate or negligent human action—is already punishable during wartime. These activists want to see the legal statutes extended to include ecocide in peacetime.
The advocacy appears to be working. The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC has begun a public consultation on the idea of revising the Rome Statute to include the crime of ecocide. If successful, ecocide would join war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression as indictable offenses of the ICC. This legal protection would have clear implications for the future of trees: the wanton destruction of the Amazon rainforest, to take one example, would be legally punishable. Perhaps this statute would prevent future destruction of the world’s forests.
This raises an interesting question: how many trees must be cut down before it becomes ecocide? Could a company like Weyerhaeuser be accused of ecocide if they harvest a forest for its lumber? Perhaps in the future, lumber will no longer be a building material.
The idea of extending legal rights to plants might be made easier once it is widely accepted that plants—and trees, especially—are intelligent. The scientist Paco Calvo argues that the chemical signals shared between plants is evidence of intelligence.
“Plants learn from experience: wild strawberries can be taught to link light intensity with nutrient levels in the soil, and flowers can time pollen production to pollinator visits. Plants have social intelligence, releasing chemicals from their roots and leaves to speak to and identify one another. They make decisions about where to invest their growth, judging risk based on the resources available. Their individual preferences vary, too—plants have personalities.”
– Paco Calvo
This is not the same scale of intelligence demonstrated by humans or by other animals, of course, but it is evidence of cognition nevertheless. Widespread acceptance of the intelligence of trees might mean that there will emerge a “trees’ rights” movement analogous to the animal rights movement.
We may kill fewer trees in the future, and plant and nurture many more than we have in the past, but at the same time it is likely that we will impose increasing demands on trees to perform for us, to solve our climate change problems for us. Biotechnological applications will no doubt be applied to trees, and we are already seeing some early efforts at this.
The startup Living Carbon is re-engineering the cells of poplar and pine trees to make them more efficient at photosynthesis and thus to grow faster and inhale more carbon from the atmosphere. These genetically modified trees have now been planted in the wild—outside of a lab setting—where Living Carbon claim to be “transforming forestry.”
For their part, the Society of American Foresters are in favor of the genetic engineering of trees.
“SAF urges government regulators to consider the cost of inaction on GE technology to society (restoration and preservation goals, economic impacts for companies and public-sector researchers). The US should diminish regulations that make field tests excessively costly, burdensome, or that limit duration of these tests.”
– Society of American Foresters
In the same way there has been a public reaction to GMOs, will there be a similar backlash against planting these “smart trees?” (My term.)
In addition to improving their carbon-removing properties, researchers at the University of Georgia received a grant from the US Department of Energy to re-engineer poplar trees to be used as a sustainable energy source.
“The researchers will use other biotechnological techniques to breed the trees as a multipurpose crop that can be used for bioenergy, biomaterial and bioproduct alternatives to petroleum-based material,” the article shares.
Although certainly in no way an instance of ecocide, to those who would view trees as intelligent species such genetic manipulation for our benefit might be viewed as, at the very least, unethical.
The technologicalization of trees will be complete when we replace our forests with human-made trees. The company Carbon Collect recently launched its first MechanicalTreeTM, a long, cylindrical object that the company claims removes a thousand times more carbon than a natural tree. Rather than a large carbon scrubber, one could easily foresee the deployment of a forest of these mechanical trees, especially in places where tree and forest growth is so difficult, such as drought-stricken areas like Arizona.
In Serbia, Liquid Trees have made an appearance in cities like Belgrade. These look like billboards or kiosks, except they are filled with water and algae, algae being very efficient at removing carbon dioxide. Rather than urban forests, I wonder if we will instead see blocks of liquid trees across urban areas—although this would do little to increase the tree canopy of a city.
If mechanical trees and liquid trees prove to be super-efficient at removing carbon—if they are, in fact, better than natural trees—then that might give license to someone or some entity to cut down natural forests with impunity, to replace them with “superior” technological trees.
A mechanical tree or a liquid tree provides no shade, nor do they contribute to heat resistance. They are not awe-inspiring to look at. And while they may be “smart,” they are in no way intelligent.
David Staley is an associate professor of history, design, and educational studies at The Ohio State University, and is president of Columbus Futurists. He is the author of Visionary Histories, a collection of his “Next” futures columns. He was named “Best Freelance Writer” in 2022 by the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists for his “Next” column.