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

181–190 of 666 posts

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

#181

Post by JBiserkov »

ebbi wrote: post #176
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.

Not intending to make this political, but it's a relevant point to consider: we should also take into account the carbon footprint of all the bombs that were dropped by America and its proxies into the equation as well. The environmental impact from these would be immense, I'd imagine.

I mean, just the nukes alone are incomprehensible, adding all the conventional munitions ... I'm out of words.

A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

1 second = 1 month

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

#182

Post by voxelghost »

mdeeks wrote: post #154
Hikikomori wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Why wouldnt per capita matter? By that logic, you are saying it would be OK for Tuvalu to emit the same amount as the US?

Or actually, if per capita doesn't matter. Then China could fracture into 10 separate nations, and their output would sudenly be negliable?

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

#184

Post by kwanbix »

geysersam wrote: post #84
kwanbix wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AS if they don't consume the products themselves with their 1.2 billion people? My home country we are only 40 million. I am sure they consume much more than us.

So what? I'm sure I personally consume much less than your country of 40 million

The point is China consumes a lot, for the rest of the world and for itself.

Was pretty obvious, but I wrote it down for you as you seem to be having trouble understanding the concept.

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

#185

Post by ivan_gammel »

trhway wrote: post #39
ivan_gammel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same article says Russia is on 2nd place in reforestation. They do export timber and can export more, while increasing the share of sustainably managed forests. But export of Baikal fresh water? That’s fake news. Didn’t happen and won’t happen, unless you mean just some bottled water.

>The same article says Russia is on 2nd place in reforestation. Reforestation alone doesn't matter. What matters is total result of deforestation and reforestation. Russia reforests only about 1Mha/year : https://www.statista.com/statistics/1059300/russia-reforeste... while the total resulting loss is https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/RUS/?ca... "In 2020, Russia had 748 Mha of natural forest, exten…

Regarding your Global Forest Watch source I recommend to look below the tagline. The numbers that you picked have very specific meaning and the same page says that most of the loss (ca.75%) was due to wildfires and it grew more forest than it was lost due to logging. When including the loss for wildfires, the total balance is negligibly negative.

Regarding you Guardian and Topwar links, you are citing the sources that speculate about rumors about some science fiction projects. Russia does not export water from Baikal or Ob River and won’t export it.

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

#186

Post by conception »

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.

Anthropophilic perhaps…

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

#187

Post by gnarlouse »

DSingularity wrote: post #69
gnarlouse wrote: post #58

I'm starting to think that we're the baddies.

[flagged]

This is a purely ecological/existential conversation. Of course the US has a horrible track record of policing the globe in its own interest. But if you want to wage selfish wars, you’d think you’d enforce policies that make sure there’s a tomorrow to be conquered.

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

#188

Post by corimaith »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #174
throwaway6734 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

A huge portion of China's emissions come from making things for people that aren't in China. The argument is that if a Chinese factory makes only widgets used in the US, those emissions from the Chinese factory are probably more accurately counted as US emissions. Its like saying that you are 0 emissions because you have an electric car with no tailpipe while ignoring where the electricity is coming from.

The counter argument is that they'd have mass unemployment and would be in poverty without it. Virtually all rapid modern industrialization is reliant on exporting to foreign markets so characteizing it as American emissions is largely a misomer as it is really global emissions.

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

#190

Post by cman1444 »

ebbi wrote: post #176
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.

Not intending to make this political, but it's a relevant point to consider: we should also take into account the carbon footprint of all the bombs that were dropped by America and its proxies into the equation as well. The environmental impact from these would be immense, I'd imagine.

...do nuclear bombs release significant amounts of CO2? I didn't think they did.
Post reply on HN