61–70 of 71 posts
I wonder if there are plans to redirect any funds spent on recycling and eco-conscious consumption in developed countries towards better collection of plastic waste in developing countries.
Excellent step. I'm still a bit concerned about these countries' oversized share in the plastic pollution of oceans. While countries such as the US contribute almost nothing to plastic waste in the oceans, the majority of it comes from China, India, Indonesia and Africa. I wonder if there are plans to redirect any funds spent on recycling and eco-conscious consumption in developed countries towards better collection…
I was speaking to someone employed as a state forester recently and we were comparing maps we had brought to the meeting. He talked about how he had access to all sorts of cool maps like infrared and even aerial maps dating back to the early 1910's and 20's. I joked that those maps must just be the tops of endless forests (this was in a northern state known for its forests) and he said the images seen were the opposi…
I grew up in NH and there is far more forest there now than there was at the turn of the century. I remember going on a hike with my father and frequently running into stone walls and old pastures at least several hours' hike from the nearest roads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What on earth does reforestation by humans have to do with climate change?
"You see, Earth is getting greener! Things are getting better! Maybe we don't need to cut down on fossil fuels and wasteful consumption after all!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You see, Earth is getting greener! Things are getting better! Maybe we don't need to cut down on fossil fuels and wasteful consumption after all!"
That does sound like the kind of dumb thing people say (or thing dumb people say - seems equivalent in this case.) But logically the two are completely unconnected. Earth getting greener or browner doesn't say anything about climate change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does sound like the kind of dumb thing people say (or thing dumb people say - seems equivalent in this case.) But logically the two are completely unconnected. Earth getting greener or browner doesn't say anything about climate change.
Greener -> more carbon sequestered -> better. It's not that simple in reality, but it's about on the level of an average person's knowledge about the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not yet by cumulative emissions, and CO2 is a cumulative problem. Also definitely not per capita.
Numerically integrating the emissions of China and US [1] from 1971-2016 leads to: China: 183,000 million tons C02 US: 234,000 million tons C02 That's a 1.28x more for the US. Since industrialization in the US started well before 1971 (you can infer this from the graph), this is significant underestimate. Obviously, the other important estimate is per capita emissions, which would be even lower for China than the 1.2…
The rule of 70 is useful; divide 70 by growth rate in percent tobget doubling time in years.
US carbon emissions have been roughly flat, and falling most years since 2005, likely from natgas substitution for coal in electricity generation, though total petroleum use has also fallen:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34872
Too: total energy in the US as of the 1970s was doubling roughly every 20 years (3.5% annual growth), meaning that "all prior history" doesn't matter to much -- half of all emissions had occurred 1950-1970 (very roughly, from memory). Similarly, as coal use was rampling up in the 1860s, contemporary writers noted that a fraction of known reserves would satisfy US energy needs for a million years ... at then-current levels of consumption. What happened, of course, is that low-cost energy spurred growth and coal use exploded. Current reserves as estimated by BP's annual statistical review are closer to 300 years, a reduction in time of over 3,000-fold.
Henry Erni (1865): https://archive.org/details/coaloilpetroleum00erni/page/14
BP: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/stat...
China's emissions were projected to rise 5% in 2018, by one source, a doubling in 15 years.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/05/30/china-co2-carbon...
There's much more to the picture, including equity, offshoring pollution, and history. bBut a simple integration over past use alone is very incomplete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of the "forests" we have at least here are planted monocultures which are periodically completely cut down. Also known as "tree farms". All trees are the same age. Also the forest is full of ditches that makes it hard to pass for animals. The ecosystem and the species living there are quite different to real more natural forests. Most people have never even been to a multi century old forest anymore. Also we ge…
I am a forester and maybe I can chime in. From the point of view of CO2 assimilation the clear-cut or even better cut in small parts over the years forests are much better than those old-growth multicentury forests around the world. Actually old-growth forest will accumulate less CO2 than younger counterparts and may have ratio of realeased and accumulate CO2 being close to 1:1. Number of species at least in European…
Also a lot of the forest mass that gets cut is used for "green energy" so it's worse than letting it stay in the forest. Basically in a periodically burnt (bioenergy) forest the carbon is kept in the atmosphere most of the time while in an old growth forest it's in the trunks all the time.
Excellent step. I'm still a bit concerned about these countries' oversized share in the plastic pollution of oceans. While countries such as the US contribute almost nothing to plastic waste in the oceans, the majority of it comes from China, India, Indonesia and Africa. I wonder if there are plans to redirect any funds spent on recycling and eco-conscious consumption in developed countries towards better collection…
The claim "While countries such as the US contribute almost nothing to plastic waste in the oceans" is laughable. Where do you think all that single use plastic from US goes? It's an externality that US doesn't pay for but likes to talk about a lot. https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2019/3/6/15700... .
USA's trash goes to landfills, from where only a tiny part of it can accidentally get into the water. Other places just dump trash into the water.