4 ms·

Why do you cut of the second part of this sentence? “Restoring trees at [low] density is not mutually exclusive with grazing. In fact many studies suggest shee

Why do you cut of the second part of this sentence? “Restoring trees at [low] density is not mutually exclusive with grazing. In fact many studies suggest sheep and cattle do better if there are a few trees in the field.”

lrem 7y ago
Because it is not that relevant, for two reasons: 1. Most land used to produce meat and milk is actually not by grazing. 2. I was tunnel-visioned on the part I added. The article calls for reforesting 1.7G hectares, at average 50% density, for a total of 850M. Amazon is being deforested at about 500k-1M hectares per year[1] and the political climate suggests making it worse rather than better. According to a quick googling, over half of Amazons trees are over 300 years old and the deforestation is done with fire, effectively instantly undoing 300 years of sequestration. So, within 3-6 years of business as usual just the Amazon deforestation balances out a year of this theoretically possible global effort. Please prove me wrong, I don't want this to be true :( Edit: TFA calls for 1.7G (not T) hectares with 1.2T trees. [1]:https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/new-report-examines-drivers-of-rising-amazon-deforestation-on-country-by-country-basis/ https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/new-report-examines-driver...
- cgh 7y ago
  >> Most land used to produce meat and milk is actually not by grazing. That's false. All cattle is grazed before spending the final few weeks of life in feedlots (unless it's grass-finished beef, in which case the feedlot is skipped). Anti-cattle people really need to visit a ranch sometime to see what actually happens there because I read a lot of misinformation on HN around this topic.
- lrem 7y ago
  Separate news touching on this: https://phys.org/news/2019-07-moist-tropical-forests-boost-climate.html https://phys.org/news/2019-07-moist-tropical-forests-boost-c... Note that opportunity claimed here is smaller than the loss from the other source. In my sparsely informed understanding, it seems slowing down deforestation should be our priority #1.
Ericson2314 7y ago
Confusing. The rest of the article is like the second half. Not sure what the first half is doing there. Was that what they previously thought?

lrem 7y ago

Because it is not that relevant, for two reasons: 1. Most land used to produce meat and milk is actually not by grazing. 2. I was tunnel-visioned on the part I added. The article calls for reforesting 1.7G hectares, at average 50% density, for a total of 850M. Amazon is being deforested at about 500k-1M hectares per year[1] and the political climate suggests making it worse rather than better. According to a quick googling, over half of Amazons trees are over 300 years old and the deforestation is done with fire, effectively instantly undoing 300 years of sequestration. So, within 3-6 years of business as usual just the Amazon deforestation balances out a year of this theoretically possible global effort. Please prove me wrong, I don't want this to be true :( Edit: TFA calls for 1.7G (not T) hectares with 1.2T trees. [1]:https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/new-report-examines-drivers-of-rising-amazon-deforestation-on-country-by-country-basis/ https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/new-report-examines-driver...

cgh 7y ago
>> Most land used to produce meat and milk is actually not by grazing. That's false. All cattle is grazed before spending the final few weeks of life in feedlots (unless it's grass-finished beef, in which case the feedlot is skipped). Anti-cattle people really need to visit a ranch sometime to see what actually happens there because I read a lot of misinformation on HN around this topic.
lrem 7y ago
Separate news touching on this: https://phys.org/news/2019-07-moist-tropical-forests-boost-climate.html https://phys.org/news/2019-07-moist-tropical-forests-boost-c... Note that opportunity claimed here is smaller than the loss from the other source. In my sparsely informed understanding, it seems slowing down deforestation should be our priority #1.

Ericson2314 7y ago

Confusing. The rest of the article is like the second half. Not sure what the first half is doing there. Was that what they previously thought?