4 ms·
I agree with you 100%, ralusek. This sounds like a particularly infantile form of nimbyism to me. Apologies to the folks living there that the forests suck, but
by jqgatsby 7y ago
I agree with you 100%, ralusek. This sounds like a particularly infantile form of nimbyism to me. Apologies to the folks living there that the forests suck, but with the fate of the planet at stake you get very little of my sympathy. Yes, in the long run, let's plant something more pleasant, but we are dealing with an immediate climate crisis and your concern about the view and local walkability are just not important compared to that.
If these shitty trees do the best job of quickly soaking up carbon, then that's what should be planted. It's not about you.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoThe unsympathetic tone of your argument makes me want to take a position against you, regardless of your rationale. I don't think that provoking opposition is your intention -- so consider this as constructive feedback on your rhetorical style.
- your-nanny 7y agoI think you should take a harder look at what is going on here.
- linksnapzz 7y agoCovering every square inch of ireland with trees will have no noticeable effect on global climate. It's just not that much land. OTOH, having native forests back would be appreciated by many of the irish, who while sympathetic to the Church of Climate Catastrophe are perhaps less willing to wear the hair-shirt of Sitka treefarms across the land. (The Irish would have to purchase the spruce climate indulgence so that bangladeshis + nigerians can add that carbon to the atmosphere by buying cars w/ ac...) Too often, the thinking goes: 1. Something Must be Done 2. This is Something 3. Therefore, we must do This.