Tree Huggers

609 readers

1 users here now

A community to discuss, appreciate, and advocate for trees and forests. Please follow the SLRPNK instance rules, found here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net

How do you save a rainforest? Leave it alone. (grist.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/treehuggers@slrpnk.net

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

New research shows that, instead of replanting rainforests, allowing them to bounce back naturally would store loads of carbon and water.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Judging from the article and abstract (not the study itself), I think it shows that natural reforestation is clearly better than humans doing arbitrary ad hoc reforestation. It does not seem to suggest that natural reforestation would outperform well-designed strategically engineered reforestation. We could make it as diverse as we want.

But it’s interesting nonetheless to be able to conclude that reforestation that is not well thought out is worse than doing nothing. It also means that the greenwashing practice of just planting arbitrary trees to take credit for carbon offsetting is even worse than previously thought.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

We will never be able to do something better than the way mother nature does it.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, natural immunity is much better than antibiotics and vaccines, which is why we invented them in the first... Oh no wait, that's actually incredibly wrong.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm talking about ecosystems here but thanks for assuming I'm antivaxxer. Disease and sickness is also part of mother nature's ecosystem controls, we've just kinds learned to beat that part.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

My point was simply that there are a lot of things we do "better than nature", though we are a part of nature anyways so the distinction is arbitrary.