Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest • Hacker News Board

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#331

Post by psiops » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 1:51 PM UTC

addcommitpush wrote: post #304

RayVR wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also read KSR's book. It was interesting at times. However, the research on the financial topics, including the central banks and "global financiers" was quite bad. I don't recall the glaring errors right now, however, given this is an area where I (at least once upon a time) was an expert, it was quite bad to read this and realize there are likely other serious errors in topics with which I am not at all familiar.…

The main thing that irked me is that the book focuses on technical solutions as if that's what we're missing (carbon coin! pumping water from under ice sheets! etc.) but completly glosses over the actual consequences. To piggyback on the rest of this thread, people like meat and don't want to stop eating lots of meat. People are not going to like things that make them stop eating meats, whether it's governement buyin…

I think in the book those people were convinced to give up air travel by the eco-terrorists known as the Children of Kali shooting commercial airliners out of the sky, and not shooting down cleaner alternatives like airships. A persuasive argument, to be sure.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#332

Post by spacemanspiff01 » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 1:53 PM UTC

fifilura wrote: post #328

JacobJeppesen wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes with quite a lot of compensation and subsidies, so they're less angry than you might expect. Also, an important note here is that they were part of the negotiations, and as such were part of the agreement which was proposed to the parliament. All that being said, you're right, they're not exactly thrilled with the government adding taxes and monitoring them more.

So you tax them for CO2 and then subsidize them for the same reason? How does help anyone else than salaries for tax and subsidy administrators?

It gets legislation that people in general want (better rivers and streams, healthier sea ecosystem) passed, by subsidizing the changes required for the people those changes negatively affect.

Is it ideal? maybe not, but it is the real world.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#333

Post by spacemanspiff01 » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 1:56 PM UTC

Ma8ee wrote: post #246

manvillej wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments pay to keep food at the cheapest point possible to ensure stability. a fed population doesn't kill their governments. Agriculture is not a regular industry; its a national security issue Farming is not a profitable endeavor. There would be a lot less financial advisors in the world otherwise. A carbon tax will either drive up prices or reduce suppliers, increasing prices. Reducing farmland will require mo…

As you point out, there are several valid reasons to subsidise farming. But then subsidise farming, not carbon emissions! And while you are at it, use those subsidies to encourage farming that is sustainable, both for the climate as well as biodiversity.

Isn't that what they are doing? They subsidize the farmers separately, and charge a carbon tax separately. Even if those are initially the same amount you would think that the incentive structure would encourage farmers to shift to less c02 methods, as that improves profit?

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#334

Post by account42 » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 1:58 PM UTC

microtonal wrote: post #73

cpursley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we keep people fed after shutting down farming (at a reasonable cost)? The entire thing seems anti-human…

Eating less meat? The questions are mainly targeted at the consumption of animal products: meat, dairy products and eggs. Their research shows that reducing the consumption of animal products, and therefore switching from a meat-eating to a vegetarian or vegan diet, reduces land requirements by two-thirds. https://www.uu.nl/en/news/calculate-the-land-use-impact-of-y... Not everyone even has to stop eating meat. Just…

So in other words you want to reduce everyones quality of life. Let me guess, when people object and then go vote the parties you don't like you are going to blame everyone except these kind of policies.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#335

Post by thinkingtoilet » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 2:05 PM UTC

silenced_trope wrote: post #236

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before anyone jumps into this book I would caution against it. This book had many very cool ideas and moments. The way it played out felt very "real". However, in the end there was very little actual story and was very boring at times. I actively dislike Neal Stephenson but if you want a near-future climate story I would recommend Termination Shock over Ministry For The Future. Just a random internet person's two cen…

> I actively dislike Neal Stephenson Why is that? I really liked Snow Crash and Anathem. Reamde was okay. I don't remember much about Diamond Age or Cryptonomicon.

I've never felt that in author is wasting my time while reading a book until him. He desperately needs a different, or any, editor. He manages to cram a 400 page story into 700 pages. Just non-stop side tangents and long passage after long passage that goes no where and means nothing to the story. It's fine to have stuff like that to build a world but this he goes overboard. If a character needs to get groceries, he'll turn one sentence about needing to go get groceries into three pages of nothing about how grocery stores work. I find it extremely boring at times, and after you read one of his books and get clued into this, it's hard to read a second book and stay interested.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#336

Post by guappa » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 2:07 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #324

JacobJeppesen wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes with quite a lot of compensation and subsidies, so they're less angry than you might expect. Also, an important note here is that they were part of the negotiations, and as such were part of the agreement which was proposed to the parliament. All that being said, you're right, they're not exactly thrilled with the government adding taxes and monitoring them more.

> It comes with quite a lot of compensation and subsidies, so they're less angry than you might expect. Do people really still buy this trick?

Subsidies will be cut by a future government so it's all fine :D

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#337

Post by flanked-evergl » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 2:09 PM UTC

The west is engaging in managed decline and moving production to places with less regulation and much worse environmental and social impacts. Why? What sense does this make? You would rather have some Muslim slave in China make your stuff while poisoning the ocean than make it in Denmark?

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#338

Post by flanked-evergl » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 2:10 PM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #171

Incidentally this is one of the approaches described in Kim Robinson's The Ministry for the Future, a novel on climate change (more about the political ramifications of it than the ecological impacts). Interesting read.

Shifting production to less regulated countries like China is not going to fix climate change.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#339

Post by flanked-evergl » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

batushka5 wrote: post #278

Refusing23 wrote: post #258

It's not exactly true the government will offer to buy the land from farmers etc. but they can just say 'no'

And in case they choose "no", that carbon tax for farm animals help to think second time.

Yeah, it's much better for farming to be moved to countries with less labour and environmental regulations.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#340

Post by guiriduro » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

flanked-evergl wrote: post #337

The west is engaging in managed decline and moving production to places with less regulation and much worse environmental and social impacts. Why? What sense does this make? You would rather have some Muslim slave in China make your stuff while poisoning the ocean than make it in Denmark?

There are such a thing as tariffs. I think it makes sense that we both improve our local environment and adopt a carrot/stick approach to businesses in other localities that do/don't do the same. Same environmental standards with independent audit should grant (eco) tariff-free access. Likewise, wasteful environmentally destructive exporter = heavy tariff.