4 ms·

The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. The US created the concept of state-prote

The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. The US created the concept of state-protected wilderness reserves and national parks. The US was the driving force behind the Kyoto Protocol, and the originating nation of solar power, wind power, and nuclear power. California leads the world in automobile fuel economy targets, and the US as a whole has cleaner-burning fuel than the EU, which for bizarre reasons settled on diesel as their standard even though it's far worse for the air than gasoline. Europe's pretty far behind in caring about the environment.

jagrsw 6y ago
> The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. But that's not b/c of actions of local residents. > The US created the concept of state-protected wilderness reserves and national parks. That's quite incorrect, e.g. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest The forest was declared a hunting reserve in 1541 to protect bison. In 1557, the forest charter was issued, under which a special board was established to examine forest usage. In 1639, King Vladislaus IV issued the "Białowieża royal forest decree" (Ordynacja Puszczy J.K. Mości leśnictwa Białowieskiego). The document freed all peasants living in the forest in exchange for their service as osocznicy, or royal foresters. They were also freed of taxes in exchange for taking care of the forest. The forest was divided onto 12 triangular areas (straże) with a centre in Białowieża.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  A hunting reserve is not a wilderness preserve. The US actually protects its wilderness areas. And the national parks and forests in CA are very much the result of local residents.
lostmyoldone 6y ago
If Europe is far behind, it's by some other measure than what is actually considered the most pressing environmental concerns of today. The average American use about three times the fossil fuels the average Swede does, and if the statistics are correct, the ratio has been increasing for decades. Germany is one of the European countries with the highest fossil fuel usage, at about half the US consumption per capita. The European average seems to about half the US average. As for Sweden, we've got strict rules for almost any kind of emission, and diesel cars have never been very common here. California is great, Kyoto was great, but actual environment track record over the entire United States is far from great. Unfortunately. If US has led as much in action as in words, I'd be happy to name you the best. We're only 10 million in Sweden, and it's outright depressing to think how little it matters even if we reduce emissions to zero. It's still the right thing to aim at, and I hope we continue on this track, but it would be much easier if big economies like the US were more heavily invested. It is of course very lucrative to try to convince others to use more expensive energy sources, and yourself use a cheaper one. Which is one perspective of the US involvement in Kyoto that is hard to entirely dismiss because of the somewhat lackluster results overall. The changeover to more gas instead of coal is good, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that US oil consumption alone is more than most EU countries use in combined oil, coal, and gas. I'm all for big wild forest lands, I probably spent the first decades of my life more in forests than outside them, but that has barely anything to do with being environmentally conscious. It has little bearing on acting in the best interests of the environment, and all people who depends on it. It doesn't matter how much you care for the forest lands if excess carbon dioxide cause entire biomes to disappear, which is a significant concern today.
pgeorgi 6y ago
> the US as a whole has cleaner-burning fuel than the EU, which for bizarre reasons settled on diesel as their standard even though it's far worse for the air than gasoline. Careful here: the US optimises for low NOx for health reasons while the EU optimises for low CO2 for environmental reasons. See for example https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241 https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-reall... (the first website I've found that doesn't look like an all car manufacturers propaganda site) which claims "In use, on average, this equates to around 200g CO₂/km for petrol and 120g CO₂/km for diesel." They even refer to the Kyoto protocol as a reason for the push for Diesel and also point out the issues with optimizing for CO2 only. But still it's not as simple as "Diesels pollute, the EU must be mad".
scbrg 6y ago
> The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. I really don't want to get into a Europe vs US argument, but this statement strikes me as odd. Sweden and California are roughly similar in size, and Sweden is nearly 70% covered by forest. For California to have more forest than Europe as a whole, not only does California need to be covered in forest to a larger extent than Sweden (this may be true, I don't know), but Sweden needs to hold more than 70% of the total amount of forest in Europe - something that seems exceptionally unlikely at best. What am I missing?

jagrsw 6y ago

> The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. But that's not b/c of actions of local residents. > The US created the concept of state-protected wilderness reserves and national parks. That's quite incorrect, e.g. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest The forest was declared a hunting reserve in 1541 to protect bison. In 1557, the forest charter was issued, under which a special board was established to examine forest usage. In 1639, King Vladislaus IV issued the "Białowieża royal forest decree" (Ordynacja Puszczy J.K. Mości leśnictwa Białowieskiego). The document freed all peasants living in the forest in exchange for their service as osocznicy, or royal foresters. They were also freed of taxes in exchange for taking care of the forest. The forest was divided onto 12 triangular areas (straże) with a centre in Białowieża.

gamblor956 6y ago
A hunting reserve is not a wilderness preserve. The US actually protects its wilderness areas. And the national parks and forests in CA are very much the result of local residents.

lostmyoldone 6y ago

If Europe is far behind, it's by some other measure than what is actually considered the most pressing environmental concerns of today. The average American use about three times the fossil fuels the average Swede does, and if the statistics are correct, the ratio has been increasing for decades. Germany is one of the European countries with the highest fossil fuel usage, at about half the US consumption per capita. The European average seems to about half the US average. As for Sweden, we've got strict rules for almost any kind of emission, and diesel cars have never been very common here. California is great, Kyoto was great, but actual environment track record over the entire United States is far from great. Unfortunately. If US has led as much in action as in words, I'd be happy to name you the best. We're only 10 million in Sweden, and it's outright depressing to think how little it matters even if we reduce emissions to zero. It's still the right thing to aim at, and I hope we continue on this track, but it would be much easier if big economies like the US were more heavily invested. It is of course very lucrative to try to convince others to use more expensive energy sources, and yourself use a cheaper one. Which is one perspective of the US involvement in Kyoto that is hard to entirely dismiss because of the somewhat lackluster results overall. The changeover to more gas instead of coal is good, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that US oil consumption alone is more than most EU countries use in combined oil, coal, and gas. I'm all for big wild forest lands, I probably spent the first decades of my life more in forests than outside them, but that has barely anything to do with being environmentally conscious. It has little bearing on acting in the best interests of the environment, and all people who depends on it. It doesn't matter how much you care for the forest lands if excess carbon dioxide cause entire biomes to disappear, which is a significant concern today.

pgeorgi 6y ago

> the US as a whole has cleaner-burning fuel than the EU, which for bizarre reasons settled on diesel as their standard even though it's far worse for the air than gasoline. Careful here: the US optimises for low NOx for health reasons while the EU optimises for low CO2 for environmental reasons. See for example https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241 https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-reall... (the first website I've found that doesn't look like an all car manufacturers propaganda site) which claims "In use, on average, this equates to around 200g CO₂/km for petrol and 120g CO₂/km for diesel." They even refer to the Kyoto protocol as a reason for the push for Diesel and also point out the issues with optimizing for CO2 only. But still it's not as simple as "Diesels pollute, the EU must be mad".

scbrg 6y ago

> The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. I really don't want to get into a Europe vs US argument, but this statement strikes me as odd. Sweden and California are roughly similar in size, and Sweden is nearly 70% covered by forest. For California to have more forest than Europe as a whole, not only does California need to be covered in forest to a larger extent than Sweden (this may be true, I don't know), but Sweden needs to hold more than 70% of the total amount of forest in Europe - something that seems exceptionally unlikely at best. What am I missing?