Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

51–60 of 81 posts

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

#51
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly de forestation scaled. We need people to realize they are part of this and it is not some videogame.

> Clearly deforestation scaled. Yes, exactly my point. How do you want to fight something that clearly scales with something that doesn't scale? > We need people to realize they are part of this and it is not some videogame. Clearly that doesn't happen. Thinking it somehow magically will happen now is IMO foolish. Instead of hoping and arguing for emotional attachment with planting trees, we should be thinking of rea…

Ok, we're clearly on totally different pages, so let me take another try at this.

> fight something that clearly scales

My point was actually to refute the implied point that something that relies on manual labor doesn't scale. Industrial logging has got nothing on all those centuries of busy little humans. Deforestation scaled without tech. The Vikings had little but axes to deforest Iceland, just time. It's been the same everywhere people have gone, no matter what century or what tech they had available: cut down the trees faster than they can grow back. You can see it everywhere from North America to Easter Island to New Zealand. Same story. Over and over. Nowadays, a lot of deforestation in Africa is literally slash and burn: machetes and fire. We have to stop deforestation, clearly, because it is easier than reforestation.

Reforestation is going to take time, no two ways about it.

> Thinking it somehow magically will happen now is IMO foolish

This is exactly my point. Sitting behind a keyboard and dreaming about billions of trees being planted by drones is the magical thinking. No matter how close you think these drones are to reality, this just simply does not exist, no one is funding this, and no one is building or running this. On the contrary, going out and planting a tree is literally something that you can do today, and people do by the thousands and millions every year. At a time when we need to actually do something, the loudest voices are techno-utopians who are literally telling people to sit down, the drones will take care of it.

> Standing in the way of technology is exactly what will kill us

This is why we are completely different pages. Technology is manifestly what is killing us, from global CO2 to enabling deforestation to overfishing to pesticides. Technology is prima facie the reason this planet is threatened by our existence. Technology is what has allowed humans to multiply from ~1.5 billion people in 1900 to 7.5 billion today and reach into every corner of the planet to exploit every kind of resource that happens to be profitable in the global economy.

And when someone points this out, well, bring on the downvotes.

Tech is like violence. If it's not working, you just need to use more. I know people don't want to process this, but this is where we are. Catastrophic overshoot. And the loudest voices are calling for more tech and more scaling. God forbid someone suggest manual labor, working with our hands, and thinking seriously about how we've seriously, seriously fucked up.

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

#53
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…

No it does not boil down to population. That is a false believe that people have been pushing since the 60s and has been proven wrong over and over again.

Its equally false that deforestation has to do with food wastage. And the 'solution' is not 'incremental improvements in lifestyle".

In the west forest and the wild are actually coming back, even while we have food waste and "bad" lifestyle. Evidence shows that with 'modern' methods actually uses less land and gives you higher yields.

Europe today is way less farmed far less then in the middle ages, forest are growing in Germany, Britain. Wild animals wolfs, bears and so on are coming back to Europe.

The problem is poverty, low productivity, bad institutions and misaligned intensives for central governments compared to the people living close to the woods. And the solution is for the government and society there to change these things, not westerns eating more leftovers rather then throwing it away.

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

#54

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.

The countries that are most capitalistic actually have a situation where the woods are coming back. Massive forests are growing all over Europe and North America because we don't need to cut them down and farm them like we did in the middle ages.

Deforestation is mostly a problem in poor society, with bad institutions, governments not caring or understanding the problems faced by the people who deforests and are thus unable to find a reasonable way to manage forest resources.

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

Go back in history and you will see how false that is. Forest have been maintained for profit for 1000s of years. Some for forestry, others for hunting, some for human enjoyment, some for tourism.

In fact forests today or usually less managed then historically, forest all over Europe were not eradicated completely precisely because they could be exploited for wood over time, and thus were maintained.

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

#55
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My government (Germany) just "lost" (their feeling, esp. voiced by minister of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital infrastructure (BMVI) who is from the most conservative coalition partner and sees tougher standards as a problem) on the EU level when they voted for tougher CO2 limits for cars. German governments have always valued the car industry (or any other for that matter) higher. On the other hand, I'…

If Germany cares about their car industry they'll force ten percent per year drops in ICE sales to force them to compete in electrics.

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

#56
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China would not be where it is without the great effort (though hamfistedly implemented) it put into controlling growth I would not advocate this authoritarian approach (I'm not saying you are). Part of the solution is what you said earlier, education. But population stabilizes on it's own as a country goes through the Demographic Transition. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition Or for somethin…

The question is whether the population will naturally level out before or after the last old growth rain forests are gone. We need to empower women in those countries and enable people to make a living in other ways than selling timber and slash-and-burn agriculture. Breeding and selling rare butterflies[1] is one option that I've heard of, but obviously that doesn't scale. I don't find it unreasonable to just pay pe…

People always throw these concepts around as though 'First world countries' is 4 or 5 individual people. I didn't cut down any forest, neither did my family. Perhaps my family trade was training birds in those forests, so I was personally very disadvantaged by cutting them down. So should I have to pay other countries not to cut theirs down now? My point is, these high-level thoughts are theoretically sound but can never be applied to the real world.

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

#58
post #56
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is whether the population will naturally level out before or after the last old growth rain forests are gone. We need to empower women in those countries and enable people to make a living in other ways than selling timber and slash-and-burn agriculture. Breeding and selling rare butterflies[1] is one option that I've heard of, but obviously that doesn't scale. I don't find it unreasonable to just pay pe…

People always throw these concepts around as though 'First world countries' is 4 or 5 individual people. I didn't cut down any forest, neither did my family. Perhaps my family trade was training birds in those forests, so I was personally very disadvantaged by cutting them down. So should I have to pay other countries not to cut theirs down now? My point is, these high-level thoughts are theoretically sound but can n…

If you value intact ecosystems and diversity you should definitely pay for them. You can't just tell poor countries not to exploit the resources that they have and hope they comply. Especially when your country's wealth is build on clear cutting, strip mining, and pollution. Even if you think that the past has nothing to do with you, the simple argument that you have money and like Orangutans and they have nothing but a forest should be enough.

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

#59
post #41

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...

To my knowledge this has been halted by court order from a state court and they're working on the case. So atm nobody is cutting down the ancient forest. It's also dubious if there is even a lot of coal under there.

They have already cut down about 95 percent of the ancient forest. What people are currently fighting for is but a 200 hectare remnant of over 4000 hectares.

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

#60
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a lot harder to build a fence with a drone than to airdrop a sapling.
Post reply on HN