4 ms·

Shell boss says mass reforestation needed to limit temperature rises to 1.5C

31 points by jxub 8y ago

karmajunkie 8y ago
Thank you Captain Obvious... maybe since so much of oil & gas companies' income is from a product that is the direct and chief contributor to global climate change, and (in the US at least) so much political inertia has been created in climate denialism by "research" they've "sponsored" over the last 40 years, maybe these companies ought to be leading the charge on exactly that reforestation.
vondur 8y ago
How feasible is something like this? I think we'd have a hard time telling a country to tear down farms and other developed land to let it return to rain forest.
- jmts 8y ago
  I've been curious for a while why we don't have more plants on buildings. Roof space seems to be wasted a lot of the time, why not put a park there? Is it considered a hazard?
  - mitchty 8y ago
    Most roofs aren’t designed to bear that kind of load would be the first problem.
  - ptrott2017 8y ago
    unless they were designed for the load, long time water retention etc- it can be an expensive rennovation/refit and brings additional maintenance costs but it is still a good idea. There are increasingly Tax breaks for necessary investment available in cities in the US doing this (1)and certainly many other countries/regions e.g (2) have various on going policy initiatives for similar developments. all in all - its highly dependent on the building and local planning regulations - but more and more places are open to supporting it and hopefully actual adoption and implementation accelerates soon. (1) http://myplantconnection.com/green-roofs-legislation.php http://myplantconnection.com/green-roofs-legislation.php (2) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/background.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/background...
mikestew 8y ago
Flagged-to-death comment notwithstanding, I do wonder of the motivation. He is certainly stating the obvious in that he's just parroting what the recent report is saying, minus the "fossil fuels have to go way" part. On the other hand, what he said doesn't mean anything at all, because he didn't follow up with, "therefore, starting today, we are instituting a new, multi-billion dollar reforestation program..." So I guess I'm kinda thinking I ought to go vouch that dead comment.
AtlasBarfed 8y ago
Pony up the bucks, Shell and their ilk externalized and dumped environmental costs on society and the planet for a century. They should be paying for whatever active geoengineering can be done. All executives current and former should have 75% of their net worth taxed. A 200% gasoline tax should be imposed. Think that is too much? Do napkin calculations on the cost to remove the CO2 that results from burning a gallon of gasoline. Sprawl property taxes should be immediately instituted. Massive government research should be initiated in wind, solar, battery, thorium reactors, lab-grown meat, vertical farming, bio/algal fuels, and space mining. I won't hold my breath.

31 points by jxub 8y ago

Thank you Captain Obvious... maybe since so much of oil & gas companies' income is from a product that is the direct and chief contributor to global climate change, and (in the US at least) so much political inertia has been created in climate denialism by "research" they've "sponsored" over the last 40 years, maybe these companies ought to be leading the charge on exactly that reforestation.

vondur 8y ago

How feasible is something like this? I think we'd have a hard time telling a country to tear down farms and other developed land to let it return to rain forest.

jmts 8y ago
I've been curious for a while why we don't have more plants on buildings. Roof space seems to be wasted a lot of the time, why not put a park there? Is it considered a hazard?
- mitchty 8y ago
  Most roofs aren’t designed to bear that kind of load would be the first problem.
- ptrott2017 8y ago
  unless they were designed for the load, long time water retention etc- it can be an expensive rennovation/refit and brings additional maintenance costs but it is still a good idea. There are increasingly Tax breaks for necessary investment available in cities in the US doing this (1)and certainly many other countries/regions e.g (2) have various on going policy initiatives for similar developments. all in all - its highly dependent on the building and local planning regulations - but more and more places are open to supporting it and hopefully actual adoption and implementation accelerates soon. (1) http://myplantconnection.com/green-roofs-legislation.php http://myplantconnection.com/green-roofs-legislation.php (2) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/background.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/background...

mikestew 8y ago

Flagged-to-death comment notwithstanding, I do wonder of the motivation. He is certainly stating the obvious in that he's just parroting what the recent report is saying, minus the "fossil fuels have to go way" part. On the other hand, what he said doesn't mean anything at all, because he didn't follow up with, "therefore, starting today, we are instituting a new, multi-billion dollar reforestation program..." So I guess I'm kinda thinking I ought to go vouch that dead comment.

AtlasBarfed 8y ago

Pony up the bucks, Shell and their ilk externalized and dumped environmental costs on society and the planet for a century. They should be paying for whatever active geoengineering can be done. All executives current and former should have 75% of their net worth taxed. A 200% gasoline tax should be imposed. Think that is too much? Do napkin calculations on the cost to remove the CO2 that results from burning a gallon of gasoline. Sprawl property taxes should be immediately instituted. Massive government research should be initiated in wind, solar, battery, thorium reactors, lab-grown meat, vertical farming, bio/algal fuels, and space mining. I won't hold my breath.