4 ms·

the tweet is about forests burning in washington state, not california. apparently they lease trees up here for carbon offset programs and its not gonna work ou

the tweet is about forests burning in washington state, not california. apparently they lease trees up here for carbon offset programs and its not gonna work out very well in the long term based on the fires lately. :x

sp332 5y ago
Also, it's not 14M tons that are at risk of burning from this fire. 14M is the total from which a fraction will be lost. This project (according to other tweets in the thread) is only contributing 2% to a risk pool. What I'm interested in is, do they have time to make up the losses? If they re-plant, can they wait ~100 years before measuring how successful the project was?
- mtnGoat 5y ago
  i do not think so, here in washington Weyerhaeuser is selling off large sections of old logging land because the trees are growing much slower than they did historically at these locations, that coupled with increased fire risk, its easier to just divest. based on that, we cant use historical stats to project the success of the project. if you want cheap land, you can get a full 640 acre parcel(one square mile) for ~$500-600k, they even have roads on them.
  - elihu 5y ago
    That sounds awesome. I assume that's for plots of land that are a long ways from any other towns/cities. I kind of wish there was something like "Kickstarter for cities". Basically, you get a few thousand or more people to put down some amount of money that would collectively cover buying a few square miles of land and connecting it to roads and electrical and water infrastructure. Everyone gets a plot of land in the new city, and the development and funds are managed by a non-profit that eventually becomes the new city government once people start moving in and there's enough population to run elections. The non-profit/government retains unsold lots that are auctioned off to finance construction of schools, fire departments, police stations, additional roads, and so on. Ideally, you'd partner with one or more major employers and/or a University that wants to build a new campus so that people coming in have jobs. This is potentially a workaround to the problem of "there's only a few cities that everyone seems to want to move to, and those are getting really crowded and housing is unaffordable". We just need more nice places to live.
    - sp332 5y ago
      You could check out what Paris is doing with their budget. A fraction of the tax money gets distributed to projects directly voted on by the residents. https://citymonitor.ai/government/civic-engagement/how-paris-participatory-budget-is-reinvigorating-democracy https://citymonitor.ai/government/civic-engagement/how-paris... Maybe cities just need reduce the hierarchy and increase direct democracy.
      - mtnGoat 5y ago
        Now this, is a great idea! Locally driven, local spending to solve local problems.
      - elihu 5y ago
        I like that system.
    - saalweachter 5y ago
      > Ideally, you'd partner with one or more major employers and/or a University that wants to build a new campus so that people coming in have jobs. This is really the beginning and end of planned cities. If you don't have an answer to "jobs" you're really planning a retirement community, not a city.
  - hodgesrm 5y ago
    That would be land that will in all probability burn in the near future. No thanks. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be thinking.

sp332 5y ago

Also, it's not 14M tons that are at risk of burning from this fire. 14M is the total from which a fraction will be lost. This project (according to other tweets in the thread) is only contributing 2% to a risk pool. What I'm interested in is, do they have time to make up the losses? If they re-plant, can they wait ~100 years before measuring how successful the project was?

mtnGoat 5y ago
i do not think so, here in washington Weyerhaeuser is selling off large sections of old logging land because the trees are growing much slower than they did historically at these locations, that coupled with increased fire risk, its easier to just divest. based on that, we cant use historical stats to project the success of the project. if you want cheap land, you can get a full 640 acre parcel(one square mile) for ~$500-600k, they even have roads on them.
- elihu 5y ago
  That sounds awesome. I assume that's for plots of land that are a long ways from any other towns/cities. I kind of wish there was something like "Kickstarter for cities". Basically, you get a few thousand or more people to put down some amount of money that would collectively cover buying a few square miles of land and connecting it to roads and electrical and water infrastructure. Everyone gets a plot of land in the new city, and the development and funds are managed by a non-profit that eventually becomes the new city government once people start moving in and there's enough population to run elections. The non-profit/government retains unsold lots that are auctioned off to finance construction of schools, fire departments, police stations, additional roads, and so on. Ideally, you'd partner with one or more major employers and/or a University that wants to build a new campus so that people coming in have jobs. This is potentially a workaround to the problem of "there's only a few cities that everyone seems to want to move to, and those are getting really crowded and housing is unaffordable". We just need more nice places to live.
  - sp332 5y ago
    You could check out what Paris is doing with their budget. A fraction of the tax money gets distributed to projects directly voted on by the residents. https://citymonitor.ai/government/civic-engagement/how-paris-participatory-budget-is-reinvigorating-democracy https://citymonitor.ai/government/civic-engagement/how-paris... Maybe cities just need reduce the hierarchy and increase direct democracy.
    - mtnGoat 5y ago
      Now this, is a great idea! Locally driven, local spending to solve local problems.
    - elihu 5y ago
      I like that system.
  - saalweachter 5y ago
    > Ideally, you'd partner with one or more major employers and/or a University that wants to build a new campus so that people coming in have jobs. This is really the beginning and end of planned cities. If you don't have an answer to "jobs" you're really planning a retirement community, not a city.
- hodgesrm 5y ago
  That would be land that will in all probability burn in the near future. No thanks. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be thinking.