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

China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 666 posts

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#151

Post by enraged_camel »

tzs wrote: post #110
porknaut wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even come close to China. So if we're a nightmarish monster, I would hate to think what that makes China.

China has 4 times the population. In any rational divvying up of the world's total emissions allowance by country China's share would be 4 times that of the US, but they are only emitting twice what the US is emitting. Both are over their fair share, but the US is over by a larger factor so is farther behind on getting to where they need to be. (This is not taking into account trade. Divvying up the world emissions b…

>> China has 4 times the population. In any rational divvying up of the world's total emissions allowance by country China's share would be 4 times that of the US, but they are only emitting twice what the US is emitting.

For now. Look at the rate of growth on their per capital carbon emissions. Then compare it with that of the USA.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#152

Post by [deleted] »

9dev wrote: post #144
marricks wrote: post #77

This and Bill Gates saying... > “the doomsday outlook [on climate change] is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” I guess it's cool there's something to be hopeful about, westerner's just seemed excited to make money off of melting ice in Greenland.

Bill Gates is fundamentally anthrophilic, so his concern is above all human suffering. I think that’s a valid viewpoint, but also shortsighted; keeping this planet habitable will require tough decisions and sacrifices, and should stay the utmost priority, out of sheer necessity.

[deleted]

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#153

Post by hereme888 »

Wise to use forests to contain deserts. Problem is that China still plays a big role in importing deforestation-linked commodities and fund overseas projects that exacerbate global loses. There are low tree survival rates and falsified coverage, like the Three-North Shelterbelt program which is plagued by inefficiencies over its 40 years of operation.

It's also hard to balance afforestation without causing scarcity of water and displacement of native forest habitats. For example, instances where shrubs are misclassified as forests inflate the report figures. China seems to be the global leader in biodiversity loss, with about 80% of its coral reefs and 73% of its mangroves gone since 1950. Everyone knows their abusive fishing practices, and the millions of tons of plastic pollution into the ocean every year.

So, keep up the good environmental efforts, China, and hope you do even better.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#154

Post by mdeeks »

Hikikomori wrote: post #112
porknaut wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does your comment have to do with ecology? Just because China plants trees (news flash, so does the US) doesn't erase the fact they are far and away the biggest emitter of carbon emissions and have high levels of pollution. Glad they are trying to do good things though.

US is far higher per capita and doing nothing about it.

This is one of the places where per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. We have one planet. The yearly total and cumulative matters the most.

China is by far the leading emitter. Over double of the US as of 2023 (latest available data I can find). China's emissions also aren't falling, they are skyrocketing. The US emissions ARE falling.

The US dominates in cumulative, which is essentially the measure of the total damage done to the planet. The US is doing something about it though. Yearly emissions have been dropping since 2007.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#155

Post by votepaunchy »

munk-a wrote: post #62
kulahan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecologically speaking, the US is an absolute monster of a nightmare. The American carbon footprint is incredible.

The US was positioned to leverage technological and economic advantages to embrace and profit massively off of next gen energy infrastructure. It is a tragedy of our era that anti-conservationalism was able to gain such a strong foothold in the body politic.

> embrace and profit massively off of next gen energy infrastructure

Our children’s generation will never forgive us for abandoning nuclear energy abundance. Truly a crime against humanity.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#156

Post by mulmen »

vanviegen wrote: post #116
mulmen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per capita emissions aren’t relevant to climate impact. Neither are relative emissions between countries. This is a global issue.

No, but if some people are outputting way more CO2 than others, these are the ones we should be focussing on first.

Serialization is a losing strategy here. “Focus” is irrelevant. We need fundamental shifts in energy production.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#157

Post by mulmen »

the-smug-one wrote: post #117
mulmen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per capita emissions aren’t relevant to climate impact. Neither are relative emissions between countries. This is a global issue.

Per capita emissions are relevant, because it shows how much each separate country needs to improve in a relative manner. Absolute emissions doesn't matter to what each state needs to do.

We all breathe the same air. Every state needs to do everything it can.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#158

Post by telchior »

9dev wrote: post #144
marricks wrote: post #77

This and Bill Gates saying... > “the doomsday outlook [on climate change] is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” I guess it's cool there's something to be hopeful about, westerner's just seemed excited to make money off of melting ice in Greenland.

Bill Gates is fundamentally anthrophilic, so his concern is above all human suffering. I think that’s a valid viewpoint, but also shortsighted; keeping this planet habitable will require tough decisions and sacrifices, and should stay the utmost priority, out of sheer necessity.

The population as a whole has a rapidly dwindling appetite for tech billionaires trying to impose "tough decisions and sacrifices" on everyone else, so Bill's probably in the right lane. He has already been the target of a vast array of conspiracy theories.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#159

Post by throwaway6734 »

tzs wrote: post #110
porknaut wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even come close to China. So if we're a nightmarish monster, I would hate to think what that makes China.

China has 4 times the population. In any rational divvying up of the world's total emissions allowance by country China's share would be 4 times that of the US, but they are only emitting twice what the US is emitting. Both are over their fair share, but the US is over by a larger factor so is farther behind on getting to where they need to be. (This is not taking into account trade. Divvying up the world emissions b…

> If there is trade the best way to handle it is probably to count the emissions for making things in country X that get consumed in country Y as being emissions in Y. With that correction China comes out even better).

Why?

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#160

Post by api »

vanviegen wrote: post #116
mulmen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per capita emissions aren’t relevant to climate impact. Neither are relative emissions between countries. This is a global issue.

No, but if some people are outputting way more CO2 than others, these are the ones we should be focussing on first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

The US is fairly high but below Canada, Russia, and many Middle Eastern countries. US emissions have also consistently fallen for the past 25 years or so.

Post reply on HN