China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990 • Hacker News Board

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

#591

Post by ivell » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

z2 wrote: post #515

ivell wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tibet was a self governing entity until Chinese invasion. Though China would disagree. Tibet's leaders are still in exile and one of the key issues of China with India. If the argument is that Tibet was not a country, then the same applies to Taiwan. Taiwan is not internationally recognized as a country, except for a few nations.

Autonomy is not sovereignty. Tibet wasn’t “invaded” like a foreign country, it had been de facto autonomous after the chaotic Qing collapse, but no one recognized it as sovereign. If I were to guess at China's narrative, the PLA’s 1950 entry is probably seen as a reconsolidation of territory long claimed by China, not new imperial conquest. And Taiwan’s status only survived because US intervention froze the Chinese c…

I think one issue is when do we start drawing the line that an autonomous entity is recognized as a sovereign country. Do we start with the UN? Because before nation states formed, it was a bit ambiguous. British empire's colonies were not a formally recognized countries in the modern sense. But we do agree that British were imperialistic.

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

#592

Post by serf » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:30 PM UTC

throw0101c wrote: post #534

somenameforme wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way would they be horrifying? The Romans advanced public works, infrastructure, and other such things on an absolutely monumental scale. Many roads built by the Roman Empire are still even in use today! And I think Marcus Aurelius is perhaps the best example in history of a genuinely socially motivated leader. And the lands under their rule were completely able to maintain their own unique identity so long as…

> In what way would they be horrifying? When Julius Caesar conquered Gaul it was said he killed one million people and enslaved another million, and was celebrated for it. The actual numbers may not be accurate, but the sentiment probably was. Moral relativism aside, would you like to live in a society where killing civilians during war and enslaving survivors were both acceptable? Or how about the the abandoning of…

>Moral relativism aside, would you like to live in a society where killing civilians during war and enslaving survivors were both acceptable?

we have yet to solve either problem, regardless of whatever new terms we come up with to describe the plight.

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

#593

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:36 PM UTC

leodler wrote: post #282

scoopertrooper wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They go hand in hand. The authoritarianism of China allows it to undertake generational projects of immense scale with mass popular support through propaganda. It works well when the government is pursuing welfare maximising initiatives, but limits self-correction when the government goes off track. A small example of it going wrong, was when Mao convinced peasants to exterminate Sparrows and other ‘pests’ only to se…

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…

[deleted]

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

#594

Post by hereme888 » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:49 PM UTC

fransje26 wrote: post #483

hereme888 wrote: post #153

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 o…

> It's also hard to balance afforestation without causing scarcity of water Is that not a bit of a non-sequitur though? From the reforestation reports I've read, bringing back trees was also coupled with bringing back springs, water and rain to the local environment. Do you mean that it can cause water scarcity in the original planting and nursing stages before the biotope becomes self-sustaining?

> Is that not a bit of a non-sequitur though?

Yes, I thought about that when I wrote it. I was trying to bring validity to their efforts, without fully dismissing the issues.

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

#595

Post by munk-a » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 7:05 PM UTC

kulahan wrote: post #553

golem14 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is a renewable, and of course it still makes sense to build it out. In what world do you think our energy needs plateau? I'm always so surprised to see this 1970s hippie attitude making a comeback, especially since it makes less sense today than ever before.

I think it makes a lot of sense to build out if the construction and remediation costs are born by a persistent entity that can amortize all those expenses appropriately. It makes almost no sense to build out if your entire energy market is privatized into small entities and you lack the regulatory willpower to ensure proper cleanup funds are reserved and thus open up a loophole for companies to run with minimal costs after construction and disburse funds internally freely. Such was the case with Vermont Yankee and it is very possible (likely even) that it'd be repeated.

If you have a strong central governance authority that can ensure proper maintenance and remediation then they're wonderful... France and China have these advantages - Japan was often held up as a paragon of this approach until massive internal mismanagement was revealed with Fukushima.

I am excited to see my country (Canada) investing more into Nuclear energy as we have a track record (ignore our uranium mining please) of doing this responsibly. I don't think America could safely manage this especially with the destabilization the current administration and lack of legislative backbone has demonstrated is possible.

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

#596

Post by ainti » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 7:22 PM UTC

seethedeaduu wrote: post #583

yanhangyhy wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In China, the process requires passing a strict psychological evaluation and surgery before one can change their legal identity and be recognized by the state. Since I used to be know some people from the community, so I have some understanding. I don’t know the policies of other countries, but for those who truly want to transition, I think this is necessary. The requirement to be unmarried is reasonable, since Chin…

This is horrible and only seems to show that voidUpdate was in fact right. > I think this is necessary Are you trans?

Keeping it strictly medical and requiring a surgical procedure that only the most dedicated would choose seems a lot more reasonable than the western idea of basing it off identity and having basically no gatekeeping.

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

#597

Post by majoe » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 7:48 PM UTC

brabel wrote: post #401

Arainach wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

There’s a good argument for America having been able to do all it did despite being a democracy without a strong central government, not because of it. Look around the world and see how many countries managed to achieve similar success using the same liberal principles? Most of Europe became rich under imperialist, authoritarian governments not with their current system. I would love to see a good counter argument th…

> Most of Europe became rich under imperialist, authoritarian governments not with their current system

Europe prospered under democratic governments after the second world war. My particular region of Germany was rural, agrarian and piss poor before the war. Now it is an industry hub and one of the richest regions in Germany, all thanks to a democratic government, which prioritised development of rural areas.

The wealth we now enjoy is incomparable to what we had under authoritarian rule before.

Let's also not forget, that the Cold war divided Europe in two halves, one with democratic governments and one under authoritarian rule, an A/B test so to say. The end result was, that they needed a wall in Berlin to keep the people from fleeing to the west.

> Look around the world and see how many countries managed to achieve similar success using the same liberal principles

Beside the whole of Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Uruguay and Taiwan come to mind. Taiwan has a per capita GDP 2.5x that of mainland China.

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

#598

Post by Arainach » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 8:03 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #446

Arainach wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LBJ made more progress on social issues than any President with the possible exception of FDR. Certainly dramatically more progress per year in office. Jimmy Carter was also socially motivated. Reagan changed the game, Newt Gingrich destroyed cooperation, and now we're living in the world they created.

Modern politicians are really good at framing everything as being the most socially motivated thing in the world. And I think LBJ is the grandfather of this stuff. When you read of his private discussions, socially motivated is just about the last thing he was. He wanted absolute political power and understood that he could create systems of dependency to achieve it. It just so happens that systems of dependency can…

>When you read of his private discussions, socially motivated is just about the last thing he was.

This isn't true. I cannot recommend Robert Caro's works on LBJ enough. Johnson had plenty of flaws, but he cared deeply about people, especially the poor. He taught immigrant schoolchildren and saw their plight. He grew up before the Hill Country had electricity and saw the reality of true poverty, and when he had power he used every bit of his skills and connections to get things like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, Medicare, and Medicaid - and so many more.

You can't (and shouldn't) separate LBJ and his administration from atrocities in Vietnam, but if he had been able and willing to extract America from Vietnam, he would be without dispute the greatest president in history and it's not close.

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

#599

Post by profsummergig » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 8:32 PM UTC

xandrius wrote: post #476

profsummergig wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India doesn't do it in an organized way though. You'll read about some 70 year old woman/man in an obscure village who's reforested thousands of acres on their own, or resuscitated a lake (e.g. the lake guy in Bengaluru). But there's little effort to harness their knowledge in a systematic way, add knowledge from others into the knowledge bank, do peer review, and then systematically dispense the knowledge in the for…

Do you personally know that or just from feelings? Because I know of several organisations doing this and are organising projects state-wide (they focused in Bihar and surroundings).

I would love for you to point me in the direction of the knowledge-bases (peer-reviewed ones) that these organizations have produced. If you can also point me in the direction of the kits they've produced, that would be extra sweet.

If you don't, readers of this comment are going to assume there aren't any, and you're just doing an ego-defense of Indian "capability".

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

#600

Post by mulmen » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 8:36 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #118

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 aren’t relevant to climate impact They aren't relevant to the climate, but they are relevant to how much energy and wealth you allow each person to have. Does a person in China deserve to have less energy or wealth than a person in America?

I don’t follow. Energy demands can be met with renewables. We don’t have to decrease energy consumption at all. We only need to eliminate fossil sources.