4 ms·

That stump is sad reminder of greedy destruction we have bought to the world. I hope we can reverse it.

sschueller 8y ago
Sadly we are still at it at a rapid pace. Maybe not so much anymore with trees but we are decapping mountains for minerals and pumping toxic chemicals in the ground to extract oil/gas.
- raptorraver 8y ago
  Let's not forget the horrendous speed we are destroying Amazon's rainforsests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    "we" are not doing that; if "we" did "we" could take responsibility and stop it. There's some very specific companies and governments we can point a finger at.
    - Tepix 8y ago
      Consumers around the world are buying the wood and the palm oil that gets planted after the trees have been chopped down.
      - opan 8y ago
        I've never been a fan of this sort of argument. If everyone decided to stop buying something, that still doesn't stop a regular batch of that thing being produced, or in this case it doesn't stop them from cutting down the trees with the assumption that they will sell. If they don't sell well, they can't un-cut the trees.
        StavrosK 8y ago
        How does that make any sense? If you keep buying something, they'll continue for ever. If you don't, they'll do it for a bit more and then stop. What kind of an argument is "they won't stop immediately, and stopping almost immediately is the same as never stopping at all"?
    - raptorraver 8y ago
      If you eat meat there's very high change that it has been fed by soy from Brazil.
chris_overseas 8y ago
For anyone looking to offset their carbon emissions, I looked into the various options and settled on Cool Earth[0] as the most promising charity for this. Here's some commentary on them from independent research on charities[1]: "We estimate that Cool Earth is able to reduce emissions by 1 tonne of CO2-equivalent for every $1.34 donated, for directly protected forest specifically (although this figure may be as low as $0.65). If indirectly shielded forest is also included, this drops to $0.38 per tonne of CO2-equivalent. This is 25 times less expensive than most carbon offset providers, which typically reduce emissions by 1 tonne for roughly every $10 spent" Having said that, it's even better to not produce the CO₂ in the first place of course. [0] https://www.coolearth.org/ https://www.coolearth.org/ [1] https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/
- owenversteeg 8y ago
  Huh, thanks! Are there others you've looked into that were close to Cool Earth or is everyone else in a different league?
- thangalin 8y ago
  "At this stage the information gathered doesn’t allow me to give a strong opinion on Cool Earth, but I would recommend that we now consider the earlier [Giving What We Can] analysis out of date." https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RnmZ62kuuC8XzeTBq/why-we-have-over-rated-cool-earth https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RnmZ62kuuC8XzeTBq/...
Wintamute 8y ago
The people that felled that tree for its essential raw materials did so under hardships and conditions thankfully many of us will never know, and not in small part due to the toil and labour of previous generations.
- drieddust 8y ago
  That does not make it any better for us. Previous generations bought good and bad both and that's the legacy we have to live with or die. We just don't know yet.
  - Wintamute 8y ago
    My point was its pointless and borderline disrespectful to project modern standards of ethics and concepts of "greed" onto people of the past that had different norms and extreme hardships to contend with. By all means we should discuss what to do about our present predicament and plan for a better future, but we can do that without denigrating those that came before us for failing against an impossible modern standard.
    - drieddust 8y ago
      You have got it backwards. These trees were not felled by individuals who were toiling to make a better tomorrow. On the contrary, greedy industralist made them toil and die for their profit. When Queen Victoria and her chronies were filling their pockets by looting the world, London was still a slum. Henry Mayhew documented this in his publication London Labour and the London Poor[1]. Things like 8 hour work week, health benefits etc were achived in blood. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Labour_and_the_London_Poor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Labour_and_the_London_P...
- jspash 8y ago
  "It would have been the biggest tree alive today had it not been so ignominiously felled in 1890 – reputedly to satisfy a drunken bet about making a table big enough to seat 40 guests from a single slice of tree-trunk." source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/reborn-the-giant-tree-felled-as-a-result-of-a-bar-room-wager-10126496.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/reborn-the-g...

Sadly we are still at it at a rapid pace. Maybe not so much anymore with trees but we are decapping mountains for minerals and pumping toxic chemicals in the ground to extract oil/gas.

raptorraver 8y ago
Let's not forget the horrendous speed we are destroying Amazon's rainforsests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  "we" are not doing that; if "we" did "we" could take responsibility and stop it. There's some very specific companies and governments we can point a finger at.
  - Tepix 8y ago
    Consumers around the world are buying the wood and the palm oil that gets planted after the trees have been chopped down.
    - opan 8y ago
      I've never been a fan of this sort of argument. If everyone decided to stop buying something, that still doesn't stop a regular batch of that thing being produced, or in this case it doesn't stop them from cutting down the trees with the assumption that they will sell. If they don't sell well, they can't un-cut the trees.
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        How does that make any sense? If you keep buying something, they'll continue for ever. If you don't, they'll do it for a bit more and then stop. What kind of an argument is "they won't stop immediately, and stopping almost immediately is the same as never stopping at all"?
  - raptorraver 8y ago
    If you eat meat there's very high change that it has been fed by soy from Brazil.

chris_overseas 8y ago

For anyone looking to offset their carbon emissions, I looked into the various options and settled on Cool Earth[0] as the most promising charity for this. Here's some commentary on them from independent research on charities[1]: "We estimate that Cool Earth is able to reduce emissions by 1 tonne of CO2-equivalent for every $1.34 donated, for directly protected forest specifically (although this figure may be as low as $0.65). If indirectly shielded forest is also included, this drops to $0.38 per tonne of CO2-equivalent. This is 25 times less expensive than most carbon offset providers, which typically reduce emissions by 1 tonne for roughly every $10 spent" Having said that, it's even better to not produce the CO₂ in the first place of course. [0] https://www.coolearth.org/ https://www.coolearth.org/ [1] https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/

owenversteeg 8y ago
Huh, thanks! Are there others you've looked into that were close to Cool Earth or is everyone else in a different league?
thangalin 8y ago
"At this stage the information gathered doesn’t allow me to give a strong opinion on Cool Earth, but I would recommend that we now consider the earlier [Giving What We Can] analysis out of date." https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RnmZ62kuuC8XzeTBq/why-we-have-over-rated-cool-earth https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RnmZ62kuuC8XzeTBq/...

Wintamute 8y ago

The people that felled that tree for its essential raw materials did so under hardships and conditions thankfully many of us will never know, and not in small part due to the toil and labour of previous generations.

drieddust 8y ago
That does not make it any better for us. Previous generations bought good and bad both and that's the legacy we have to live with or die. We just don't know yet.
- Wintamute 8y ago
  My point was its pointless and borderline disrespectful to project modern standards of ethics and concepts of "greed" onto people of the past that had different norms and extreme hardships to contend with. By all means we should discuss what to do about our present predicament and plan for a better future, but we can do that without denigrating those that came before us for failing against an impossible modern standard.
  - drieddust 8y ago
    You have got it backwards. These trees were not felled by individuals who were toiling to make a better tomorrow. On the contrary, greedy industralist made them toil and die for their profit. When Queen Victoria and her chronies were filling their pockets by looting the world, London was still a slum. Henry Mayhew documented this in his publication London Labour and the London Poor[1]. Things like 8 hour work week, health benefits etc were achived in blood. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Labour_and_the_London_Poor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Labour_and_the_London_P...
jspash 8y ago
"It would have been the biggest tree alive today had it not been so ignominiously felled in 1890 – reputedly to satisfy a drunken bet about making a table big enough to seat 40 guests from a single slice of tree-trunk." source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/reborn-the-giant-tree-felled-as-a-result-of-a-bar-room-wager-10126496.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/reborn-the-g...