3 ms·

I doubt there are many climate scientists on here, and I am certainly not one, but the problem as I see it is that the public and industry generally are resista

I doubt there are many climate scientists on here, and I am certainly not one, but the problem as I see it is that the public and industry generally are resistant to subtractive solutions: driving less, going on fewer flights, carbon taxes and so on. Therefore the best solutions are additive: planting billions of trees and investing in industries that reduce carbon emission. Planting trees in particular is something that is- a) simple b) fairly cheap c) has a range of other benefits such as helping to improve air quality and reduce water runoff, preventing floods. d) helps wildlife more generally I know it's more complicated than that, but that's a good place to start. Perhaps even pay people to grow trees on disused land.

zw123456 7y ago
I think you are on the right track. I think there was a post here on HN the other day about needing a trillion trees to counter CO2 from human activity (or something like that). So what if online retailers like Amazon had some sort of opt in where you could donate $1 extra with your order to get a tree planted (or it would go to that). It probably would not be enough to get you to a trillion trees but if a lot of online retailers offered that at least it would give people something they could do easily.
titojankowski 7y ago
I like your framing -- subtractive vs additive. Reminds me of additive manufacturing (3D printing)