Someone suggested Venmo - I was going to look into that tonight, would that work for people?
If I can't get the trees for any cheaper than ~$2 each (I'll try to do better via some shopping around among countryside suppliers and bulk buys, since the amount of donations has increased!), it should be about $20/t at typical planting densities if I go with the smallest seedling size available. But if I can get them cheaper, then that would linearly reduce costs (e.g. $1/tree = $10/t, etc), discounting the nonlinear aspects (e.g. soil restoration... clover seed plus innoculants is ~$1-2k for all 8ha, manure or fertilizers to add phosphorus (and some additional nitrogen) would be another couple thousand, etc). No labour or transport costs, as I'm doing that all myself
Going with larger tree sizes would increase costs, but decrease the sequestration time. Restoring soil starts storing carbon fast, but young seedling trees take a long time before their carbon uptake becomes significant, particularly here in Iceland (in the picture in my first post, you can see the results of a neighbor's past reforestation efforts in the distance... probably about 2 decades ago, and still plenty more to grow). In the long term, of course, forest holds significantly more carbon than grassland. So there's the tradeoff between total vs. rate.
If I can't get the trees for any cheaper than ~$2 each (I'll try to do better via some shopping around among countryside suppliers and bulk buys, since the amount of donations has increased!), it should be about $20/t at typical planting densities if I go with the smallest seedling size available. But if I can get them cheaper, then that would linearly reduce costs (e.g. $1/tree = $10/t, etc), discounting the nonlinear aspects (e.g. soil restoration... clover seed plus innoculants is ~$1-2k for all 8ha, manure or fertilizers to add phosphorus (and some additional nitrogen) would be another couple thousand, etc). No labour or transport costs, as I'm doing that all myself
Going with larger tree sizes would increase costs, but decrease the sequestration time. Restoring soil starts storing carbon fast, but young seedling trees take a long time before their carbon uptake becomes significant, particularly here in Iceland (in the picture in my first post, you can see the results of a neighbor's past reforestation efforts in the distance... probably about 2 decades ago, and still plenty more to grow). In the long term, of course, forest holds significantly more carbon than grassland. So there's the tradeoff between total vs. rate.
Last edited: