This article is frustrating for me. Especially his take on trees. The article states the target goal/amount of trees planted would only reduce carbon 6%. Ok, but, it will reduce temperature. I live in WV near a state forest. It is typically 7°-15° F cooler at my house than in town. Additionally, the sun in the summer doesn’t even hit my house until noon-ish, which significantly reduces my air conditioner consumption.
I chose to share this mostly for awareness. I am not especially fond of his perspective.
Trees remove CO2 then die and release it back.
We can’t grow back forests like they were at any relevant speed to even ‘make a dent’ in CO2 emissions.
The only way to stop is to end coal, oil and gas oxidation to CO2. All other things are misdirection, at best.
Exactly. The first thing we need to do is stop extracting extra carbon from the ground.
Then we literally need to start reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, probably by literally growing trees, cutting them down and them straight up burying them deep underground.
Or stuff like prairie restoration since prairie grasses are WAY better at actually sequestering carbon into their roots than trees
deleted by creator
There’s always a problem with grammar and pronouns. I am not, and likely you aren’t, working to extract carbon on a massive scale. Industries are. And these industries got elect officials in their pockets. And even if they’d crash, some Arab oil princes wouldn’t wanna lose all their assets.
The only way to stop is to end coal, oil and gas oxidation to CO2. All other things are misdirection, at best.
You are absolutely correct. If we want to stop global climate change, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.
And there are so many other benefits to the environment of growing more trees - especially native species - that anybody who says growing trees is useless is just not paying attention.
And and trees are made of CO2 and release it when they’re burned or decay, which makes them, quite literally, carbon neutral. In terms of fuel and building material and so forth wood may not be perfect but it’s better than a lot of nonrenewable alternatives.
Yeah, but ecological damage isn’t about CO2. It’s about global ecosystem collapse. Reforestation helps stopping damage to local wildlife, keep bees alive, etc. If we focus only on CO2 we run the risk of falling into technocratic strategies of minimaxing it’s mitigation. All that while ignoring what we are trying to preserve in the first place.
Trees also help lowering local temperature, and a small but significant part of that carbon will be absorbed by fungi and stored bellow the Earth. And with diversity, they can provide resources for communities such as fruits, teas, and other good stuff.
This tech bro needs to go away the same way Elon needs to go away.
I also completely disagree with his perspective on trees because it ignores so much of what we already know that trees do (other than store carbon in their bodies and in the soil around them). Trees are basically straws that take water from the soil and put it in the atmosphere. Along with this they put turpenoids that act as seeds for droplet formation in clouds. They prevent erosion and help infiltration. They increase soil C in both litter and below ground inputs (which extends the duration of moisture into the drought season for most drought limited climate. All of these non-linearties further increase the effectiveness of trees as a stop gap against climate change. Trees buffer local climate and support keeping areas of our planet as functional ecosystems. Without functional ecosystems, we stand 0 chance against this issue. Along with other environmentally appropriate solutions like re-installing deep rooted prairies into the mid-west, tree just make sense.
And most importantly, trees exist right now. They aren’t some imaginary technology that emits more CO2 than it consumes because its lab bench level at best. There are species adapted to every climate in every biome on planet earth where it is physiologically possible to grow trees. Trees are something we can do right now that can actually make a dent; they have basically no down-side, and many slight but important upsides.
Bill Gates is a turd that should be ignored in the same manner that Elon musk should be ignored. Just because he enacts his individual will through billionaire “philanthropy” instead of through corporate decision making, doesn’t make him some savior to be listened to.
deleted by creator
I get what you’re saying but to equate Gates to Musk is a bit much. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation actually does some good work. Musk throws tantrums with his money.
They should be taxed on 100% of that surplus money and we should use it to fund the programs we collectively agree to as a society.
The benevolence of billionaires isn’t how we should be making these decisions. Its whitewashing the fact that they have dismantled our societies ability to govern itself through taxation and public spending.
Not to mention Bill Gates “philanthropy” has also had disastrous consequences.
So no. Fuck Bill Gates. He doesn’t get a pass because his marketing team is more effective at whitewashing his wage theft than Elon Musk.
deleted by creator
Dog bill gates forced the COVID vaccine to be patented so he could profit off of it.
deleted by creator
You have to start somewhere. And frankly its better than nothing because currently we still have carbon growth in the atmosphere
Ok, that’s fair. I think I got really mad about the trees :/ Especially living where I do. When I am in the concrete jungle it is crazy how much hotter it is.
Regarding emissions, I agree something has to change. On top of the oil and gas, our chemical plants are killing us too. They call where I live Chemical Valley and one town near a huge plant has the 4th highest cancer rate in the country.
Add to that, this is coal country. It’s baffling how many people around me are disabled or have lost family who worked in the mines, yet flip out when you talk about taking their coal away.
I am all to familiar with chemical and oil refineries. Where I live is called “Cancer Alley” from all the refineries along the river( because of the number of them the amount of chemicals in the river is still dangerous because EPA limits are per refinery not per water way)
Ok, that’s fair. I think I got really mad about the trees :/ Especially living where I do. When I am in the concrete jungle it is crazy how much hotter it is.
Regarding emissions, I agree something has to change. On top of the oil and gas, our chemical plants are killing us too. They call where I live Chemical Valley and one town near a huge plant has the 4th highest cancer rate in the country.
Add to that, this is coal country. It’s baffling how many people around me are disabled or have lost family who worked in the mines, yet flip out when you talk about taking their coal away.
Removed by mod
I think the take on trees is massively important when it comes to outdoor planning (or whatever you call it) in cities. Green patches in cities help reduce temperature, making it a safer environment. Oftentimes trees are available in the rich parts of cities but not the poor parts.
Ok but I feel like you and op are conflating local and global temperature. Cities are warmer because of the heat island effect but I’m pretty sure that has basically nothing to do with global climate change.
Local effects are a way to deal with the warming we’ve already locked in.
“I’m the person who’s doing the most on climate in terms of the innovation and in how we can square multiple goals,” Gates said during an onstage interview Talk about a savior complex.
Same way he took on covid vaccine patent?
Trees are nice, we should have more trees everywhere.
Planting trees isn’t gonna solve the climate crisis and shouldn’t be sold as a solution like it sometimes is.
