you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It doesn't really say anything new, while the primary mentions the replanting.

It doesn't mention the numbers. And it is material that the 14 million felled tress is about 5% of the replanted trees over the same time period.

The worst part was that they were shooting the WRONG messenger! Where do they even get the source of the Herald from?

The herald article is 29th February 2020.

The OP article is a recycle. I guess that they needed a story to counter the heatwave. So hope that no one notices the three and a half year time gap.

It is pretty well known that protecting mature forests is much more important than replanting, and have a actual meaningful CO2 impact (planting many trees poorly, it seems, may increase net CO2 output).

No so much more that 272 million replanted trees doesn't sequester more than 14 million cut ones releases.

Even if simply gravel, they will trap heat and increase concrete and other surface coverage's global warming efforts.

Those cause local, not global warming. Clean power is much more significant for curtailing global warming in the decades timescale.

And wind turbines are the cheapest power on the planet at the moment.

[–]Although 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"Clean power" Wind turbines? LMAO!!!

"And wind turbines are the cheapest power on the planet at the moment."

What planet are you on? Ever heard of Germany? Wherever wind turbines proliferate, there goes the economy, goodbye, and goodbye to cheap electricity.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know, that all up for questions, I think (for already stated reasons). When you cover the entire land of the Earth with concrete, steal, or gravel, you have to wonder if that is causing a temperature impact. It seems more likely than focusing on our tiny impact to normal CO2 cycles, mostly based on one study in the '70's and a steady flood of deceptive use of data with misleadingly framed charts all coming generally from one source.