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

231–240 of 666 posts

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

#231

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#232

Post by renewiltord »

nitwit005 wrote: post #114
renewiltord wrote: post #5

Much of Europe used to be forest. It just all got whacked in the few centuries prior to today. So you have Europeans making tiny recoveries to their rampant destruction of their environment celebrating that fact while preventing others from doing what they did. There is one path to this: first clear cut your forests so you can build your industry; then build your industry so you can be prosperous; then rebuild your f…

> Much of Europe used to be forest. It just all got whacked in the few centuries prior to today. The deforestation goes back much further than that. Europe experienced significant deforestation in the middle ages. It was a major issue for many countries long before industrialism.

Yes, all that's happened is that we declared that morality started on Apr 22 2016. Slash and burn, cut and grow. Three hundred years from now, when the result is massive prosperity we can pontificate to whomever is cutting trees then.

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

#233

Post by yanhangyhy »

I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution.

Xi Jinping may be a rather dull person, but his most famous saying is “Lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets.” As for building roads — the Belt and Road Initiative speaks for itself. We’ve built bridges in Croatia, in Bangladesh, in Mozambique, and roads and railways all over the world. That slogan is probably engraved in every Chinese person’s memory.

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

#234

Post by Spooky23 »

deadbabe wrote: post #42
cyberax wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So why are the forests growing faster

Climate patterns are changing. My kids will retire with the cheap old farmland we bought that I’m planting black walnuts on.

Upstate NY was ideal maple syrup production territory for years. Now, we’ve changed from USDA Zone 5 to 6, so the region will be more like western Virginia in 20 years.

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

#235

Post by trhway »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #185
trhway wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 tha…

>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.

Official state news https://ria.ru/20160503/1425318933.html

"Moscow invited Bejing to discuss fresh water transfer project from Russia to China - stated the Russian Minister of Agriculture"

and the further description of the proposed project is exactly the second project described in the topwar link.

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

#236

Post by moefh »

gorwell wrote: post #221
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.

For context, here are the top 10 biggest footprints 1. China 26.16% 2 United States 11.53% 3. India 7.69% 4. Russia 3.75% 5. Brazil 3.16% 6. Indonesia 3.15% 7. Japan 2.15% 8. Iran 2.06% 9. Saudi Arabia 1.60% 10. Canada 1.54% The top 10 countries account for about ~60% of global CO₂ emissions.

That's not great context: China and India have huge populations, it's expected that they should be at the top.

Better context can be found here[1] (countries by emission per capita). It's still not great because it shows a lot of small countries at the top. For example: Palau is the first, but it has a population of a few thousand people, so their emissions are a rounding error when compared to other countries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

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

#237

Post by Spooky23 »

golem14 wrote: post #178
votepaunchy wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I used to be a true believe in nuclear (in the 80s, 90s). Recently, I thought (with good justification) that it's a folly to build out nuclear if renewables' economics continue on the current path. Recently, I wonder if a nuclear winter (I mean this in the cold war context) is likely enough to make renewables massively less efficient. If the current administration were more competent, I'd assume that they are pushing…

Nuclear doesn’t work in a market based electricity market. The capital costs are high and it’s difficult to make money if you aren’t paying down those expenses.

IMO, the old style regulated public utilities were cheaper and more reliable.

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

#238

Post by uvaursi »

yanhangyhy wrote: post #233

I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. Xi Jinping may be a…

My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I ride a Mercedes, my son rides a Land Rover, and my grandson is going to ride a Land Rover…but my great-grandson is going to have to learn Mandarin.

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

#239

Post by abdullahkhalids »

jimbokun wrote: post #205
tzs wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Assigning blame and guilt is pointless. Just look at how well it has worked to motivate the US to change. That is to say, not at all. The only thing moving the needle is renewables and nuclear generating power more cheaply than fossil fuels, so it becomes stupid to not switch to them even if you have no regard for the long term health of the environment.

It's not about assigning blame.

Per capita emissions give us a better idea of which groups of people require the largest change in their lifestyle in order to hit net zero. The current numbers suggest that the typical person in the US will have to do a lot more to hit net-zero than the typical person in China. Obviously, you can do better and estimate per capita emissions for each province/state/city or by wealth level. For instance, in many poor countries, most of their emissions come from the top 5-10% of the population. Everyone else emits basically nothing.

On the other hand, the total emissions of a country, absent other information, has little actionable value. It can only be uses to assign blame, so quite useless.

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

#240

Post by Myrmornis »

A very worrying number of people nowadays seem to think that forests are a thing to counter climate change. What is the species composition being planted? Is it appropriate to the location? Reforestation must be about recreating _forest ecosystems_, not about creating the photosynthetic counterpart of a vast fucking solar farm.
Post reply on HN