We recently received a generous donation of red alder trees for planting on our property. A Washington-based non-profit provided us with trees as part of their mission to help land owners increase carbon sequestration on their land while providing natural habitat with native plants. We are very grateful for this gift, support the intent behind their foundation, and look forward to the beauty and benefits these trees will provide for us, you, and generations to come.
Alnus Rubra (Red Alder) - the most abundant hardwood tree in the Pacific Northwest. In addition to its ecological value, this tree has a number of medicinal uses long known to local indigenous people.
In consideration of this timely donation, I had intended to write about carbon, atmospheric carbon content, carbon sequestration, regenerative agriculture, and their importance, but… there’s a problem. I don’t like to write about things I don’t know (usually) and I cannot find any reputable, believable, verifiable, or otherwise consistent information about carbon, atmospheric carbon, carbon sequestration, carbon footprints per capita, carbon copies, carbonite, carbonara, or anything else including the words ‘car’ and ‘bon’. Nobody’s methodologies are sufficiently explained, no one’s math adds up — everyone has a different number for the same statistic, and different metrics for the same values.
I do believe carbon matters, and I do believe I can do something about it that will have a positive effect on the future. I also believe in doing my own math, and I’m not half bad at it. But I can’t convince you or anyone else to come along with me if I know that my argument has a different outcome when calculated with Government A’s data versus Research B’s data versus Media C’s data and so forth. It’s as if all the self-appointed authorities are playing an old fashioned game of telephone and every time they whisper “x tonnes of carbon per second…” into the next person’s ear, it gets perverted, manipulated, inverted, shaved, and inflated.
Poly dome calf huts make great mini-greenhouses, providing shelter for our young trees. It does seem a little weird to use a petroleum product to house a carbon sequestration tool, but they were purchased used (for our sheep) and get repurposed often. We’re also experimenting with them as a way to protect bee hives in winter.
So I’m thinking in bets. I’m betting that planting more trees will matter. I think it’s a good bet — how can I lose? Aside from planting a magnolia grandiflora right over your septic line, when will you ever say to yourself “I wish I’d never planted that dang tree!”? Ok, I admit, I’ve regretted planting one or two trees in my life (mostly privets, which I like but…) only because I was an ignorant first-time homeowner when I did it.
One of my favorite considerations for “thinking in bets” is recognizing that most of the time when you lose, it’s because you made a mistake, and most of the time you win, it’s because you got lucky. At best, you usually win by ‘not’ making a mistake. At any rate, someone else will have to check my math in a hundred years or so, because this hand won’t be played out until long after I’m gone. It’s hard to imagine how planting more trees (we’re talking a lot more, hundreds per year more) could be a mistake, so I’m placing my bet. Even if I’m wrong about the carbon, it seems like we’ll still come out ahead — we’ll get the glorious flush of new growth in the spring to remind us of the Earth’s capacity for renewal, the shade in the summer, the attraction of wildlife, the increased oxygen release, the beautiful fall colors, leaves drifting on the wind down to the ground to provide cover for local insect pollinators to hide under over winter so they can come back and help make our food happen next spring, roots penetrating ever deeper into the ground, holding soil in place and…
Wait a second — isn’t this what the carbon lifecycle is all about? It seems like a good bet to me.