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

331–340 of 666 posts

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

#331

Post by mdeeks »

XorNot wrote: post #202
rtpg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the "we only have one planet" angle, I think it's worth considering that China is not just burning coal for domestic purposes for fun. The fossil fuel consumption is an input to some output, a lot of that going abroad. If China is the factory for all of these products sold in the US (and elsewhere of course), then isn't China just accounting for even more US emissions? In that sense, some sort of eco-Trump could p…

Theres going to be a very entertaining set of mental gymnastics people will start doing once China's emissions growth peaks and starts falling compared to the US. They're building a lot of renewables, a lot of nuclear plants and are very obviously tooling up to replicate fusion from whoever nails it. Whereas the US is trying to increase its fossil fuel industry and cancelling renewable projects.

They aren't just building "a lot" of renewables and nuclear, they are building an absolutely mind boggling amount of it. Last year it was more than the rest of the world combined!

Who cares about mental gymnastics. It's a win for literally everyone and I hope you ca see it that way instead. Competition is good. It drives others to keep up.

Despite what the current US govt wants, the economics of solar and other renewables will drive it. Worst they can do is slow it down a bit.

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

#332

Post by deadfoxygrandpa »

thesmtsolver wrote: post #207
gnarlouse wrote: post #58

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

Great quality comment. We shouldn't consider the fact China did much more deforestation to start with and even after all this reforestation China has lesser forest area than the US despite being larger in size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_ar... https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54719577 > The US claims: "China is the world's largest consumer of illegal timber products." > And, ac…

well, china also has gigantic northern and western regions that cannot be forested. the us doesn't have an equivalent of the tibetan plateau or the gobi desert

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

#333

Post by shubhamjain »

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…

> Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution.

They haven't, imo. I am from India, and I have been hearing for the last two decades how we have avoided same mistakes as China and the latter is headed for a demographic collapse. China is only marching forward, and focusing more on automation to hedge its bets. While overpopulation in India has choked almost every city in India. I honestly don't know what will happen as more people migrate from rural to urban areas.

India's population will peak in 2065, while China's already has. It's depressing to imagine that 250-300M more people are left to be added before we finally see a decline.

Just like 1970s claim "overpopulation will destroy the planet" turned out to be exaggerated, the modern idea that “a large population is a blessing” feels equally misguided.

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

#334

Post by nextaccountic »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #329
londons_explore wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all propaganda is deceptive. The best propaganda is 100% true and still achieves it's goal.

Propaganda is deceptive or misleading by definition.

You can deceive while telling the truth, like this ad from a Brazilian newspaper (dubbed in English) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShbxd42JN8

Truth needs to be put in context. Truth needs to be interpreted. There is no such thing as objective truth.

Effective propaganda is like a filter that is everywhere you look. You don't know it's there because you never see the world without it.

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

#335

Post by andrewflnr »

onethought wrote: post #254
andrewflnr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

Imperialism? Expand.

They're plainly trying to expand their territory in Taiwan and the South China Sea. Building invasion barges that can only be used for invading Taiwan, harassing Phillipine ships. It's not subtle.

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

#337

Post by andrewflnr »

somenameforme wrote: post #322
andrewflnr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

Not to be coy, but what do you mean by that? The reason I ask is because I think many of us use these terms, but without ever thinking about exactly which behaviors we're critiquing, or how they relate to what we truly value. For instance both the Roman and Greek Empires deserve immense respect, yet they were both often imperial empires ruled by dictators. The same is no less true of many societies that played key ro…

Indeed, I think Rome, Greece and other conquering powers get more respect than they deserve. There's no actual reason so many people have to die for these countries' national ambitions. Feel free to generalize to the US, etc.

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

#338

Post by andrewflnr »

FpUser wrote: post #286
andrewflnr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

>"if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism" Oops, my hypocrisy meter just broke.

You may be making assumptions about me.

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

#339

Post by seizethecheese »

yndoendo wrote: post #330
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…

Are low birth rates a problem? The job market keeps being published about lack of employment. Recent was this UK having a 1,200,000 plus college graduates and less than 100,000 job placements. The USA market is also bad with very limited economic mobility based on years past. Is the job market too restrictive with maximize profit over maximum knowledge transfer and upkeep? Not properly balancing older and newer labor…

The relationship between the job market and employment is not so straightforward as you presume. After all, fewer people means less demand for labor as much as it means more supply. In general a falling population is considered an economic risk.

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

#340

Post by somenameforme »

Arainach wrote: post #284
leodler wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow we (the United States) accomplished generational projects that are currently out of the realm of possibility such as the interstate system without risking anything like a famine. I think a lot of people in America have been overly-empowered to stand in the way of the most modest progress through NIMBYism, litigation, local government, etc. To a lot of people it increasingly feels like a form of private author…

"Somehow" we did that back when we believed in a strong federal government working for the benefit of the people. It's no wonder that we lost the ability after decades of anti-government propaganda and regulatory capture.

It's not that people turned against the government just randomly. Who was the last genuinely socially motivated President we had? I idealize JFK, but I think that's largely because of his charisma, how he ended, and obviously the space program. Yet how did he not just immediately condemn and completely dismantle the entire CIA when the proposal for Operation Northwoods [1] reached his desk, and was one signature away from execution? And that'll probably look benign as the actions from more recent decades are declassified in the future.

And after his assassination everything went downhill fast with divide and conquer, all alongside global self destructive geopolitical nonsense that continues to this very day. We have spent, just since 2000 upwards of a very conservative baseline of $10 trillion on war and military related expenses. That's a starting point of about $30,000 for every single man, woman, and child in America. Think about all of the amazing things we could have done with that money. Instead we just blew it on pointless wars and have literally less than nothing to show for it since they not only made the US far less safe, but made the world far less stable.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Post reply on HN