this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
140 points (96.7% liked)

World News

39096 readers
3445 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UristMcHolland@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I would rather them just spend 1.2 billion planting trees. Just plant a shitload of trees, that's it.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Planting trees has a very minimal impact on the climate in the long term.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How efficient at sinking carbon are trees? As in, once the tree decomposes, the carbon gets largely released back into the air.

But yeah, "shitload of trees" + "some way of storing them at end of life that doesn't result in carbon back into the atmosphere" seems like a pretty solid plan.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Trees are some of the best carbon sinks there are. Far greater than any artificial ones we have so far. Trees last a long time, and when they die you can just plant more.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The real issue is that trees take a long time to get to their maximum sink potential, and require a LOT of water, nutrients, and excellent soil to get there.

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The ocean is the best. But we keep messing that up as well.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trees are great. Except they love to burn. Either as a fuel, or as part of the forest fire.

That's why I hate when the corporations do carbon offseting by planting trees.

[–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah what's the percentage of all trees burning up? That's kind of a dumb take.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean have you been reading the news lately about the multiple massive wildfires throughout the world?

[–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes and with a 3rd of the Amazon chopped down. What do we have? Still a fuck ton of trees and need for a fuck ton more.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

I don't want to sound like a fatalist, but there is actually no upper limit.