4 ms·

Maybe sounds too much like spouting from the climate change denier camp? Which I am the opposite of. There are a lot of flower & daisy soft solutions to C02.

Maybe sounds too much like spouting from the climate change denier camp? Which I am the opposite of. There are a lot of flower & daisy soft solutions to C02. Drive to the suburban forest in your SUV, plant 100 trees that will inevitably be cut down long before they have a carbon negative impact, come home and run your AC. You're still running 1000/1 in negative C02 balance. Vs finds ways to dramatically cut use, double down on investigative hard solutions like nuclear and major infrastructure projects like mass transport, car banning, new taxation on major freight (sea and road) to force efficiency adoption etc. Lots of hard solutions are readily available to solving the problem, but by definition they're hard.

tunesmith 7y ago
We've gotta get past the argument pattern of "don't reduce consumption; sequester!" and "don't sequester; reduce consumption!" A lot of both are needed. I agree with the point that planting 100 trees should not leave anyone feeling they've done their part. Repeating the math until we're blue in the face is what helps there I guess.
- aresant 7y ago
  Fair point. But convincing the entire population of the world to set their thermostat 1 degree higher during the summer months would have a 1000x multiple impact on a 40x shorter time scale than if every one of those people planted a tree. The spirit of my comment is that in general people LOVE the path of least resistance. Ask the average person about combatting climate change and their response is "plant more trees". Because that's easy, shit you can pay the gardener to do it or donate $10 to a plant the tree collective and feel instant gratification with no sacrifice. Vs the highest possible impact solution which is cutting personal consumption - even a little bit!
  - OJFord 7y ago
    > But convincing the entire population of the world to set their thermostat 1 degree higher This confused me for longer than I'd care to admit, but now that I get it, I'd just say that a much smaller proportion of 'the entire population of the world' - even the developed world - has AC than it might seem to an American perspective.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Trees can keep running for 40-100 years using your figures. Governments can compulsory purchase and designate regions as wilderness or reserve, and require region appropriate planting. Perhaps to resemble former natural forest. You can't ask people to set their thermostat 1 degree warmer every year for that 40-100 years. You can expect there to be scope for continued tree planting for decades. Neither is a sole solution, but both are part of a holistic, reasoned and coordinated journey to carbon neutrality.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rabidrat 7y ago
    You can easily plant 1000 trees to cover some of the people who won't bother, but setting your thermostat 1000 degrees higher in the summer won't do anything more.
    - ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
      This is all well and good, except that you cannot easily plant 1000 trees and ensure they continue to exist in mature form forever. At least, you cannot for most values of "you." Maintaining 1000 mature trees is not a trivial matter.
      - tunesmith 7y ago
        I wonder about this too - all these charities for planting trees or renting carbon scrubbers or buying carbon offsets, they all have a certain level of capacity after which they'd be sold out. So buying carbon offsets don't really offset all your carbon.
pmoriarty 7y ago
"Drive to the suburban forest in your SUV, plant 100 trees that will inevitably be cut down long before they have a carbon negative impact, come home and run your AC. You're still running 1000/1 in negative C02 balance." So do 1000 times that, and don't plant them in a suburban forest but one that will stay around longer. Or contribute money to tree planting initiatives who do it right.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  Each apple, each year, for the last 40 years, that somebody grow in their garden, is an apple less that must be moved burning gasoline from Idaho or Colorado to a market near you, one piece of fruit less that must be waxed and wrapped in plastic and put in one-use wood boxes, before to be moved again to your house, probably burning a litte more gaz. Trees provide more services than log production

tunesmith 7y ago

We've gotta get past the argument pattern of "don't reduce consumption; sequester!" and "don't sequester; reduce consumption!" A lot of both are needed. I agree with the point that planting 100 trees should not leave anyone feeling they've done their part. Repeating the math until we're blue in the face is what helps there I guess.

aresant 7y ago
Fair point. But convincing the entire population of the world to set their thermostat 1 degree higher during the summer months would have a 1000x multiple impact on a 40x shorter time scale than if every one of those people planted a tree. The spirit of my comment is that in general people LOVE the path of least resistance. Ask the average person about combatting climate change and their response is "plant more trees". Because that's easy, shit you can pay the gardener to do it or donate $10 to a plant the tree collective and feel instant gratification with no sacrifice. Vs the highest possible impact solution which is cutting personal consumption - even a little bit!
- OJFord 7y ago
  > But convincing the entire population of the world to set their thermostat 1 degree higher This confused me for longer than I'd care to admit, but now that I get it, I'd just say that a much smaller proportion of 'the entire population of the world' - even the developed world - has AC than it might seem to an American perspective.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Trees can keep running for 40-100 years using your figures. Governments can compulsory purchase and designate regions as wilderness or reserve, and require region appropriate planting. Perhaps to resemble former natural forest. You can't ask people to set their thermostat 1 degree warmer every year for that 40-100 years. You can expect there to be scope for continued tree planting for decades. Neither is a sole solution, but both are part of a holistic, reasoned and coordinated journey to carbon neutrality.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rabidrat 7y ago
  You can easily plant 1000 trees to cover some of the people who won't bother, but setting your thermostat 1000 degrees higher in the summer won't do anything more.
  - ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
    This is all well and good, except that you cannot easily plant 1000 trees and ensure they continue to exist in mature form forever. At least, you cannot for most values of "you." Maintaining 1000 mature trees is not a trivial matter.
    - tunesmith 7y ago
      I wonder about this too - all these charities for planting trees or renting carbon scrubbers or buying carbon offsets, they all have a certain level of capacity after which they'd be sold out. So buying carbon offsets don't really offset all your carbon.

pmoriarty 7y ago

"Drive to the suburban forest in your SUV, plant 100 trees that will inevitably be cut down long before they have a carbon negative impact, come home and run your AC. You're still running 1000/1 in negative C02 balance." So do 1000 times that, and don't plant them in a suburban forest but one that will stay around longer. Or contribute money to tree planting initiatives who do it right.

pvaldes 7y ago
Each apple, each year, for the last 40 years, that somebody grow in their garden, is an apple less that must be moved burning gasoline from Idaho or Colorado to a market near you, one piece of fruit less that must be waxed and wrapped in plastic and put in one-use wood boxes, before to be moved again to your house, probably burning a litte more gaz. Trees provide more services than log production