4 ms·

The title says trees but I think it really means “greenness” from a satillite view. Reading around the bottom, while India and China have done substantial tree

The title says trees but I think it really means “greenness” from a satillite view. Reading around the bottom, while India and China have done substantial tree planting programs, it sounds like a large chunk of this may be driven by unsustainable use of farm land. I’m not clear on how their increased farm usage corresponds to greenness and whether that matters. Would be curious if anyone can chime in.

raws 8y ago
All plants do contribute to carbon sequestration but yes it does not mean that they are polluting less with unregulated farming practices.
- ehnto 8y ago
  Regulations rarely target sustainability anyway. The only thing typically regulated is water rights and chemicals used.
em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
There is a lot of potential to sequester carbon in soil in farms: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/89405 https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/89405
wyattpeak 8y ago
From the abstract of the study[1]: > The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%), but in India is mostly from croplands (82%) with minor contribution from forests (4.4%). I can't comment on the sequestration effects of farms, though, beyond my ken. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7
- tejtm 8y ago
  To sequester, the carbon has to stay put, Crops are typically harvested annually fields are tilled and rotated so amortized, they will buffer a much smaller amount of carbon that cycles rapidly.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The Chinese forest expansion is the most amazing piece of news I'd never heard of. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118302594 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411...
dang 8y ago
Ok, we've shortened the title above to preempt that ambiguity.
AckSyn 8y ago
> it sounds like a large chunk of this may be driven by unsustainable use of farm land With what basis are you qualifying this assumption?

raws 8y ago

All plants do contribute to carbon sequestration but yes it does not mean that they are polluting less with unregulated farming practices.

ehnto 8y ago
Regulations rarely target sustainability anyway. The only thing typically regulated is water rights and chemicals used.

em3rgent0rdr 8y ago

There is a lot of potential to sequester carbon in soil in farms: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/89405 https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/89405

wyattpeak 8y ago

From the abstract of the study[1]: > The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%), but in India is mostly from croplands (82%) with minor contribution from forests (4.4%). I can't comment on the sequestration effects of farms, though, beyond my ken. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7

tejtm 8y ago
To sequester, the carbon has to stay put, Crops are typically harvested annually fields are tilled and rotated so amortized, they will buffer a much smaller amount of carbon that cycles rapidly.
pjc50 8y ago
The Chinese forest expansion is the most amazing piece of news I'd never heard of. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118302594 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411...

dang 8y ago

Ok, we've shortened the title above to preempt that ambiguity.

AckSyn 8y ago

> it sounds like a large chunk of this may be driven by unsustainable use of farm land With what basis are you qualifying this assumption?