You're viewing a single thread.
I'll be honest, I've always been dubious of the idea that we can pump all the carbon shit into the air we want if we just plant enough trees to eat it. It sounds like a dodge, akin to clean coal.
Maybe start from stop pumping all this carbon shit into the air, and take the commensurate lifestyle changes as the cost of our species surviving.
That said, it's extremely clear the long term survival of humanity on our only habitat isn't a priority for humanity.
Happy Prime Day everyone!
I don't know anyone who advocates for "pump carbon into the atmosphere as long as you plant trees".
I would think most environmentalists are more like "let's pump less carbon into the atmosphere and plant more trees."
Like, what's the downside here? There's more trees? That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
The downside from what I've observed is that many organizations correctly believe that they can pollute with abandon and put out the public relations pushback with the promise of trees.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/planting-trees-climate-change-carbon-capture-deforestation
It sends a problem solved message. Yes, plant trees, trees are awesome. Trees won't save us from those emissions though.
The downside from what I’ve observed is that many organizations correctly believe that they can pollute with abandon and put out the public relations pushback with the promise of trees.
Sure. But then they don't plant the trees, either. They just kick money into a fund that runs ads about planting trees.
The root of the problem isn't the tree planting vs. carbon emitting, its the industrial scale lying and bullshitting.
You're right organizations do this and I also get that for anyone paying even a little attention the climate situation is maddening.
That said, I don't think your original comment was addressing the content of this meme as much as a perceived argument.
I think this is referring to the shade benefits, not carbon capture.
Individual one-off trees in residential areas are negligible from a carbon point of view.
Reforesting agricultural land by reducing meat consumption would make a huge difference, particularly in the Amazon (#1 cause of deforestation in the Amazon is for beef production). Livestock farming uses around 50% of all agricultural land globally, while plant based proteins use a small fraction of that. Reforesting also has the benefits of improved biodiversity.
no reforestation has been caused by cutting meat out of ones diet. all reforestation efforts, in fact, have nothing at all to do with diet.
That said, it's extremely clear the long term survival of humanity on our only habitat isn't a priority for humanity.
For some large organisations and governments, maybe, but the majority of people see climate action as a priority:
Reforestation still lowers temperatures on the surface because of shade.
Increases humidity though.
So uh 🤷♀️