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

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

#581

Post by WorldPeas » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:12 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #568

jillesvangurp wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is expecting that they are out there digging with bare hands. Most of these ditches are dug out by the locals with shovels. We're talking subsistence farmers here in areas where people are more or less trying to live off the land. Their hands and some primitive tools is all that's there.

I confess that is a little surprising to me. Such that I can agree it would be a worthwhile endeavor to get them better equipment. I would still call people using bigger stuff to be doing manual labor. For the same reason that using a lawn mower is still a manual labor job.

>Such that I can agree it would be a worthwhile endeavor to get them better equipment.

I imagine they /want/ it, it would just be a massive issue because they do not have equal supply chains to more developed nations, and them having to pay to make up the difference makes the cost-to-benefit ratio not make sense

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

#582

Post by seethedeaduu » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:21 PM UTC

yanhangyhy wrote: post #484

voidUpdate wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a trans lesbian and thus I am ineligible for a legal gender change in china. The UK is bad about trans people, sure, but at least it is legally possible for me (for now)

This is false information. Gender transition is legal in China. There are many cases on Chinese social media. We even have a celebrity who is transgender. On Chinese internet there is even a joke. Because women retire earlier than men in China, people discuss whether they can exploit a loophole by changing their legal gender to female in the year before the female retirement age to retire earlier.

People in europe were making the same joke. It wasn't done with respect of trans people.

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

#583

Post by seethedeaduu » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:23 PM UTC

yanhangyhy wrote: post #493

voidUpdate wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I got my information from The Economist, which says that you have to be unmarried, heterosexual and get permission from your family to change your gender, and you have to have surgery before you are recognised

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?

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

#584

Post by lbrito » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:26 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #80

lbrito wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell everyone what their per capita emission is? While you're at it, compare that with the US per capita emissions. Also let us know the accumulated emissions for China and US in the last 50 years. Thanks.

Per capita emissions aren’t relevant to climate impact. Neither are relative emissions between countries. This is a global issue.

That's not the point.

Why are some people entitled to more than others based on where they live?

The US is the world leader in per capita CO2 emissions. Has been for over a century. Only in 2021 China has reached 8t per capita. Do you know when the US reached that figure? 1899.

The inhabitants of the US, and of the UK before it, have been enjoying the benefits of energy-intensive industry for hundreds of years. But the externality of that process - the emissions - is a burden shared with everyone else in the world. As others have mentioned, the planet does not care who emitted CO2.

None of those countries is in a position to criticize the emissions of China or India or Brazil or whatever other country.

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

#585

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:37 PM UTC

yanhangyhy wrote: post #484

voidUpdate wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a trans lesbian and thus I am ineligible for a legal gender change in china. The UK is bad about trans people, sure, but at least it is legally possible for me (for now)

This is false information. Gender transition is legal in China. There are many cases on Chinese social media. We even have a celebrity who is transgender. On Chinese internet there is even a joke. Because women retire earlier than men in China, people discuss whether they can exploit a loophole by changing their legal gender to female in the year before the female retirement age to retire earlier.

[deleted]

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

#586

Post by jama211 » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:41 PM UTC

onethought wrote: post #261

jama211 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And oppression of Tibet and the Uyghur people and other human rights violations…

A mean not to go too deep into whataboutism… but at least they only persecute their own Muslims rather than picking random countries on a map and persecuting them.

Sounds like you’re comparing it to the United States or something? I’m not from there

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

#587

Post by somenameforme » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:42 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #511

somenameforme wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Give a man a fish every day and he'll do whatever you want to keep getting that fish This is complete nonsense. Certain demographics that depend the most on welfare oppose it the most. Mitch McConnell responded to concerns about the political impact of Medicaid cuts saying that voters would "get over it". LBJ was certainly motivated by power, but he also genuinely cared about social issues as well. He knew that the…

In the 60s the black population was rapidly increasing and groups like the NAACP were working to politically organize them into a cohesive force. There's endless quotations from the time about LBJ being concerned about them and fearing that they could become a major political force. From his exact quotes he was worried about losing the filibuster, so I assume that translates to him thinking they might be able to start winning Senate seats in states with high black populations.

So then he passes the Civil Rights Act in July 1964, then the Food Stamps Act on August 31st 1964, and then there's the election. The black turnout for the election ended up being 58% with something like 94% of their vote going to him, giving him a landslide of an election victory. So what he was saying wasn't just trying to convince people, as it's often been reframed - he was simply being a realist and was 100% correct.

The guy was a massive racist and segregationist for most of his entire political career. But more than anything he was a professional politician who wanted power. And he did what he thought could get that power. This [1] Snopes article includes many of his 'greatest hits' and tries to conclude with an argument claiming that he wasn't mostly fixated on claiming the black vote, but it makes no sense. Apparently in reading the headlines about the Civil Rights Act he was found in a melancholy state and when asked why he said, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come." That was obviously him being worried that his calculations might been wrong, but they weren't - he won 44 states in the election.

[1] - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-voting-democratic/

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

#588

Post by jama211 » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:43 PM UTC

omikun wrote: post #302

jama211 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And oppression of Tibet and the Uyghur people and other human rights violations…

Have you heard of this thing called the new Jim Crow?

Is that an American thing? If your point is “America is also bad!” - I don’t disagree, I’m not from there, so why bring it up? Why don’t we start listing all countries with bad things?

This isn’t some gotcha. This article is about china, so chinas issues are relevant.

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

#589

Post by trhway » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:46 PM UTC

ivan_gammel wrote: post #485

trhway wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 descri…

One article in propaganda outlet from 2016 doesn’t count as fact. The fact is, nothing did happen, there’s no export of fresh water and there’s no such plans.

>One article in propaganda outlet from 2016 doesn’t count as fact.

It isn't article itself that counts here. The official statement of the Russian Minister of Agriculture is the fact here. Whereis you so far stated only your personal opinion.

>there’s no such plans

You contradict the above mentioned official statement of the Russian Minister of Agriculture.

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

#590

Post by AuthAuth » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:09 PM UTC

geysersam wrote: post #83

AuthAuth wrote: post #46

This sounds big but its less than the bare minimum required. Their coal emissions are insane. In my opinion its all anyone should be talking about when it comes to climate change.

This is propaganda. It's impossible to take this comment in good faith

This article is propaganda. Its part of a green washing campaign China started a few years ago to offset their reputation of being a dirty country powered by coal. Think about how often you hear about China's solar despite it being a tiny part of their energy grid.