Talking about that, how can a small group plant trees (with seeds) ? Is it subtle and complex ? or is it possible to do on a hike ?
Just plant a couple of trees every day: https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/short-film-showca...
Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
61–70 of 81 posts
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#62Deforestation is a great issue in developing economies. It's something which must be addressed. What's not mentioned is that human population growth is the main driver of this pressure. Given our abilities to manage disease and such, more efforts should go into educating women in developing allowing them to become more independent and have more control over their reproduction. When people move from agrarian societies…
China’s population isn’t stable. Every single Han majority state has below replacement fertility, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong King, Macau and China proper. The post WW2 history of Taiwan strongly suggests that the one child policy was unnecessary. It was brutal, evil and unnecessary.
Given the issues we can attribute (at least in part) to overpopulation, why would an at-or-above replacement rate be intrinsically more stable?
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#63Whatever 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.
> using drones to plant 1 billion trees? sigh , more tech. Personally I think humans owe a debt of a little elbow grease here and sitting on the sidelines with a remote control seems a bit soulless and detached. Dirt under your fingernails will teach you a lot. > a country largely devoid of trees. Forests need to bootstrap entire ecosystems, a process that can take thousands of years. It'd be like trying to load an O…
I guess to downvoters, I'll just http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/energy-slaves/
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
China’s population isn’t stable. Every single Han majority state has below replacement fertility, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong King, Macau and China proper. The post WW2 history of Taiwan strongly suggests that the one child policy was unnecessary. It was brutal, evil and unnecessary.
Given the issues we can attribute (at least in part) to overpopulation, why would an at-or-above replacement rate be intrinsically more stable?
Being below replacement rate completely destroys the way our taxation and welfare systems are built.
Both rely on having more people contributing taxes than there are leeching off of them.
In the 1 child policy, 1 working person is suddenly responsible for the welfare of 2 retirees.
Welfare systems would collapse, unless it was rethought from ground up.
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#65I sometimes wonder about the right of a country to use rapid deforestation / dirty energy as a way to development.
100-200 years ago, every modern developed economy did the same and cemented their positions as dominant economies. There is no question that these countries have been the majority contributors to climate change over the last 2 centuries.
Morally speaking, are underdeveloped countries not entitled to the same. Why should they use more expensive and cleaner fuel as payment for a problem that's not their fault ?
I see the fault in my own argument, which is that we are all on this together and massive collective action is the only recourse we have.
But, the perceived injustice faced by underveloped countries is probably not misplaced.
The onus is certainly on the west to take an initiative.
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#66Why can't a few billionaires of the world buy up a large % of the rainforests? Seriously. Besides the fact that they would rather let their wealth sit in a hedge fund, I mean.
Was that a deliberate pun? :)
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#67I wish that we didn't keep getting headlines containing phrases like "scientists say this" "according to scientists" and so on. I mean, how much does it hurt to be specific? Sometimes it just turns out to be a single grad student or something like that. The article doesn't even say who they are but even "A group of 40 scientists signed a statement saying.." would be an improvement.
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#68Number one cause for amazon deforestation is cattle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra... All the more reason to go vegan.
Or don't keep cattle in the rainforest. Not every problem with cattle has to be solved by making an impractical and enormous swing in your life.
Or don't keep cattle in the rainforest.
Should the opportunity to do so ever arise, I’ll make a note not to do that. In the meantime, as I am not a cattle farmer, I’ll continue to not eat meat.
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#69I sometimes wonder about the right of a country to use rapid deforestation / dirty energy as a way to development. 100-200 years ago, every modern developed economy did the same and cemented their positions as dominant economies. There is no question that these countries have been the majority contributors to climate change over the last 2 centuries. Morally speaking, are underdeveloped countries not entitled to the…
The onus is definitely on the existing developed nations to persuade developing nations not to deforest.
That likely means paying to protect the forests, and also to encourage the kind of economic development that would have happened with deforestation as well. All of the timber logistics and processing industry, as well as the agriculture that would develop in the cleared lands is compelling. Certainly maintaining pristine forests employs some people and could promote tourism (depending on access issues), but that doesn't really compare.
But developing countries also crave independence and self-sufficiency, so it must be done with a light touch.
Re: Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
#70In 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.
'Why?' Do you only do something for personal benefit or payment? I doubt it and neither do most of the rest of us.
Socialism is where property is communally or governmentally owned and treated as a free resource and the evidence shows us that resources are inevitably overused with little regard for future consequences.
Driving through Romania and other countries in Eastern Europe after 1989 provided ample illustration of the above. The comparison was stark and pitiful.