4 ms·

I did not read this, but it is a stupid assertion on face value. Five of the top six countries by hectares of forest coverage are: Russia, Canada, United State

I did not read this, but it is a stupid assertion on face value. Five of the top six countries by hectares of forest coverage are: Russia, Canada, United States, China, Australia Where are the "rich" countries who are going to come forward to pay these ones for their "forests as a service".

InvertedRhodium 5y ago
I think that's sightly misleading, if you measured it by percentage of landmass then I suspect the rankings would be different.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Measured that way, Russia is #48, Canada 76, US 89, China 121, and Australia 130. But then you have to take into account that these large countries have large deserts, high mountainous areas, tundras and plains. As far as impact on the planet, total forested areas is what matters, not percentage of tree coverage. Suriname is #1 in percentage forest cover, but it's a small country. Brazil's forest coverage is much more important to climate change.
zamadatix 5y ago
Five of the top six countries by total land area are: Russia, Canada, China, United States, Australia So it's not particularly impressive to bring up absolute forest coverage as a gotcha considering that's not the argument made in the article. Nor is wanting a country with 85% forest cover acting as a ~5x carbon sink to not develop its land or use its resources but pay a developed country which has already developed over its land and is acting as a carbon generator (such as the US at about ~5x carbon generator) simply because it is larger is a reasonable response from reading the article. That being said I'm not sure I buy this is the best way to combat CO2 levels or the most realistic but not because of "face value" reasons rather the actual argument presented.
- uberman 5y ago
  Who cares about relative coverage when the notion is to compensate for CO2 captured? The largest forests capture the most CO2. Global CO2 levels fluctuate in sync with the seasons in the northern hemisphere. The 4 of the 6 countries with the largest forests are in the northern hemisphere. Europe and North America and Australia account for about 1/2 of all forested land. Where are the "rich countries" that are going to step forward to pay Russia and Canada for holding more than 1/4 of all trees?
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    > Who cares about relative coverage when the notion is to compensate for CO2 captured? The notion isn't absolute CO2 captured it's net CO2. If country A generates 1000 units and captures 200 units while country B generates 20 units and captures 100 units then clearly country B isn't indebted to country A simply because A's captured unit count is higher A is indebted to B for having taken some of the pollution out (assuming A wishes for B to continue doing so rather than clear the forests and develop). You have to accept country B would be indebted to country A in the above scenario before you can get to questions like who is going to pay Russia and Canada as while they are large and have large absolute capture numbers they are even larger polluters.
    - uberman 5y ago
      The article says nothing substantial about net co2. It is entirely about rich countries paying poor ones for trees.

InvertedRhodium 5y ago

I think that's sightly misleading, if you measured it by percentage of landmass then I suspect the rankings would be different.

goatlover 5y ago
Measured that way, Russia is #48, Canada 76, US 89, China 121, and Australia 130. But then you have to take into account that these large countries have large deserts, high mountainous areas, tundras and plains. As far as impact on the planet, total forested areas is what matters, not percentage of tree coverage. Suriname is #1 in percentage forest cover, but it's a small country. Brazil's forest coverage is much more important to climate change.

zamadatix 5y ago

Five of the top six countries by total land area are: Russia, Canada, China, United States, Australia So it's not particularly impressive to bring up absolute forest coverage as a gotcha considering that's not the argument made in the article. Nor is wanting a country with 85% forest cover acting as a ~5x carbon sink to not develop its land or use its resources but pay a developed country which has already developed over its land and is acting as a carbon generator (such as the US at about ~5x carbon generator) simply because it is larger is a reasonable response from reading the article. That being said I'm not sure I buy this is the best way to combat CO2 levels or the most realistic but not because of "face value" reasons rather the actual argument presented.

uberman 5y ago
Who cares about relative coverage when the notion is to compensate for CO2 captured? The largest forests capture the most CO2. Global CO2 levels fluctuate in sync with the seasons in the northern hemisphere. The 4 of the 6 countries with the largest forests are in the northern hemisphere. Europe and North America and Australia account for about 1/2 of all forested land. Where are the "rich countries" that are going to step forward to pay Russia and Canada for holding more than 1/4 of all trees?
- zamadatix 5y ago
  > Who cares about relative coverage when the notion is to compensate for CO2 captured? The notion isn't absolute CO2 captured it's net CO2. If country A generates 1000 units and captures 200 units while country B generates 20 units and captures 100 units then clearly country B isn't indebted to country A simply because A's captured unit count is higher A is indebted to B for having taken some of the pollution out (assuming A wishes for B to continue doing so rather than clear the forests and develop). You have to accept country B would be indebted to country A in the above scenario before you can get to questions like who is going to pay Russia and Canada as while they are large and have large absolute capture numbers they are even larger polluters.
  - uberman 5y ago
    The article says nothing substantial about net co2. It is entirely about rich countries paying poor ones for trees.