5 ms·
yep, exactly what humanity needs now to go to hell faster is less forests.
by pvaldes 6y ago
yep, exactly what humanity needs now to go to hell faster is less forests.
- gns24 6y agoDo you have some data showing that the amount of carbon stored in Siberian forests has a more significant warming effect than the methane escaping from the warming ground?
- pvaldes 6y agoMore carbon in the air = bad. More carbon in trees = good. Maybe we could have a chance. I think that is not so difficult to understand the concept after so many decades talking about it. Russia has a 23% of the forests in all the planet. Bigger than Amazonas.
- chr1 6y agoMore carbon in the ground is also good, and in arctic permafrost can store much more carbon than trees. Russian and Canadian forests are bigger than tropical forests, but they are much less productive, contain much less life and therefore much less carbon than tropical forests. That's why restoring the native grasslands (which were destroyed by humans) would be an improvement.
- eukgoekoko 6y agoThe goal of this project is to replace tundra with grasslands. And tundra isn't a forest really, it's quite the opposite: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra
- rob74 6y agoErrr, the article you're quoting says: > Tundra vegetation is composed of dwarf shrubs, sedges and grasses, mosses, and lichens. So, they want to replace grassland with... grassland (maybe with less shrubs)?
- pvaldes 6y agoThe topsoil in tundra is really thin, is rock basically and is ultra-poor and acidic. Very different ecosystems. To remove the layer of soil is easy but to make it appear again magically... not. You need thousands of years in some cases.
- chr1 6y agoThat's not so much about converting the forest as about restoring the old ecosystem that have been destroyed by people in stone age. Both tundra and taiga are very low productivity desert like environments that have replaced rich natural grasslands.