Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#21

Post by barry-cotter »

CalRobert wrote: post #17

Meanwhile even a country normally viewed as responsible is cutting down ancient forest to get to the coal beneath. Bit of a double whammy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin-startup...

Yeah, that’s what happens when you shut down all your nuclear power plants. Suddenly you really need coal. It’s very, very cheap if you don’t count the costs of air pollution, the lives lost to people inhaling fine particulates or the cancer from uranium and other isotopes released into the air by burning it.

Coal’s a great deal for a poor industrialising country but that’s not Germany.

Bring back nuclear!

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#22

Post by kornakiewicz »

CalRobert wrote: post #16
grey_earthling wrote: post #15

In a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest? Unless you get enough direct personal benefit, or someone else is paying you enough, you wouldn't. This isn't a failure of capitalism; this is capitalism.

Because not maintaining it is too expensive after you pay for the externalities. Which you must, of course, in any reasonable regime.

Not in Q4.

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#23

Post by rienbdj »

iNerdier wrote: post #13
danielecook wrote: post #12

Whatever happened with the idea of using drones to plant 1 billion trees? I was in Iceland earlier this year - a country largely devoid of trees. There aren’t any because the Vikings chopped them all down. Despite the cold - however - they do grow there albeit much slower then elsewhere. In any case, it seems to me we could be seeding a lot of barren locations so they’ll become forests within 20 years.

Sheep. They’ve tried and sheep tend to eat all the saplings. Unlike in other places the sheep are not penned in, they’re free to roam which means any area you want to try and re-forest in a fairly hostile environment to begin with has to be expensively fenced off until they get to a fairly good size.

Can’t fence in the sheep? Fence in the trees.

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#25

Post by vectorEQ »

CalRobert wrote: post #17

Meanwhile even a country normally viewed as responsible is cutting down ancient forest to get to the coal beneath. Bit of a double whammy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin-startup...

if they keep it up we won't need this coal because the atmosphere will be fire :'D rofl - some people really take it to the next level, i mean one of either, it's a dirty but legit business. both is pushing it hahaha. wonderful world!

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#26

Post by vectorEQ »

sampo wrote: post #19
CalRobert wrote: post #17

Meanwhile even a country normally viewed as responsible is cutting down ancient forest to get to the coal beneath. Bit of a double whammy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin-startup...

George Monbiot opines that Germany has never been particularly responsible: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-...

they have been responsible for a lot of things tbh ;D you didnt have history lesson?

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#27

Post by icebraining »

grey_earthling wrote: post #15

In a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest? Unless you get enough direct personal benefit, or someone else is paying you enough, you wouldn't. This isn't a failure of capitalism; this is capitalism.

In a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest?

Because you own the forest and want it to keep producing income?

That said, a non-capitalist model would probably work better, since implementing the full capitalist solution (by allowing people to sue polluters, who harm them and their property) is politically infeasible.

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#28

Post by ciconia »

wawhal wrote: post #3

Sure. The greater problem is how do we achieve that. With a growing population, deforestation has become necessary to meet agricultural and accommodation needs of humans. As sad as it sounds, people need food and shelter. The problem boils down to controlling population and also handling population. If people want to keep buying new houses, there is more demand for deforestation. The agricultural demand for deforesta…

> With a growing population, deforestation has become necessary to meet agricultural and accommodation needs of humans. As sad as it sounds, people need food and shelter.

One of the main reasons deforestation is happening is because arable that was once fertile has become less and less productive, due to modern agricultural techniques (plowing, monoculture, fungicides, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers) and extreme weather causing erosion. It's really a vicious cycle - the more humanity (ab)uses Earth's resources, the poorer the yield, the more extreme the weather, leading to growing resource use. By some estimates, a third of arable land has already been lost in the last 40 years [1].

But deforestation is not necessary to increasing food production. On the contrary, as the article explains, it is a major stumbling block to bringing C02 emissions under control, and stopping the vicious cycle of

The answer to food production is more responsible agricultural practices, that cultivate soil quality and mixed cultures in order to increase yields. At the same time, humanity can definitely cut back on its food waste [2].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-l... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste_en

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#29

Post by adrianN »

icebraining wrote: post #27
grey_earthling wrote: post #15

In a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest? Unless you get enough direct personal benefit, or someone else is paying you enough, you wouldn't. This isn't a failure of capitalism; this is capitalism.

In a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest? Because you own the forest and want it to keep producing income? That said, a non-capitalist model would probably work better, since implementing the full capitalist solution (by allowing people to sue polluters, who harm them and their property) is politically infeasible.

Pristine rainforest produces very little income compared to cleared land that can be used for agriculture.

Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions

#30

Post by barry-cotter »

SCHiM wrote: post #20
im3w1l wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demographic transition is just a theory. UN have already had to adjust population projection upwards as the curves have not followed the theory as close as predicted.

Do you have a reference to this?

https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/08/demographic-transiti...

> fertility decline in Africa has generally proceeded more slowly than in other parts of the world, with several cases of “stalls” and even small fertility increases over time

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2...

> While this study looks at lessons from East Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa currently exhibits two unique demographic characteristics. First, it is the only region in the world that is still at a very early stage of the demographic transition. As such, it can learn from other regions that have gone through the same journey to ensure that demographic change paves the way to deeper and more sustainable prosperity. As this book points out, this path is neither easy nor automatic. Success requires actions in differ- ent policy realms that are time-coordinated, adapted to the current level of the demographic transition, and results-driven. The second unique characteristic of the region’s demographic picture is its heterogeneity. While a small number of countries are far along the transition, with fertility rates that are below replacement levels, many others are exhibit- ing surprising delays in the transition in the last 10 years. Some countries are showing very little movement along the natural transition and are stuck at very high fertility rates. These large differences argue for differentiated policies that target different sectors and processes. They also argue for country to country learning and knowledge sharing.

Post reply on HN