How many football fields is that though?
China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
191–200 of 666 posts
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably, yes. This is possible in Sweden, if you go from South to North, you can travel for multiple days by car and if you avoid highways, you will not leave the forest at all.
The joke I'm making is that many Texans like to make that statement about Texas (with regards to size and driving) and claim it's unique to that state and to the US without realizing that it's common for many other parts in the world as well.
Pretty much. Try driving from Perth to Broome in a day. It is about 24hours of straight driving and it is still a good 10 hours to the boarder.
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#193I'm starting to think that we're the baddies.
Ahem: "China consumes over half of the world’s coal and contributes more than 20% of global CO2 emissions from coal combustion."
But trees are nice.
Source: https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.918
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#194Earlier 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.
It's funny this myth persists, primarily in conservative circles, it seems. We are far worse per capita than China. In 2023, the US emitted 13.83 tons of carbon per capita. In that same year, China emitted 9.24 tons per capita. There are few countries that are worse than us - that list includes Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Shanghai's carbon per capita is 11.4. It's not really that different if you equalize the wealth per capita.
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Qatar emits FAR more than the US per capita, but the total emissions are extremely small. The impact on the climate is tiny comparatively.
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#196Wise 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…
Honest question, aren't coral reefs also very sensitive to climate change? How much of that loss is because of regional activities and how much is due to global environmental changes?
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not the detonation itself (if we don't count the fires it may cause), but the total CO2 cost of nukes is high [1]:
> A bomb on its own does not emit carbon dioxide… It’s the infrastructure, the construction (cement emits a lot), fossil fuel use, manpower, consumption, supply chains etc that all contribute.
> A study published in the Energy & Environmental Science journal has documented that using 1/1000 of the total capacity of a full-scale nuclear war weaponry would induce 690 tonnes of CO2 to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere. This is more than the annual carbon footprint of the United Kingdom.
[1] https://lakenheathallianceforpeace.org.uk/carbon-footprint-o...
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
That’s a really great point. Maybe their emission curve is what matters. It’s the measure of if they are investing enough into reducing emissions despite their production needs.
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#199It should be noted that massive tree-planting efforts do not magically create "forest". They create tree plantations. Forest is a complex ecosystem that takes some time.
Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990
#200How many football fields is that though?
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=Divide%5Barea+...
About 130 million.