4 ms·

I don't know if "Mother Jones" is a great source also -- "to outrun climate change," What does that mean exactly? The greatest carbon sink in the world is the

I don't know if "Mother Jones" is a great source also -- "to outrun climate change," What does that mean exactly? The greatest carbon sink in the world is the midwest during growing season. Would converting that into forests improve that? No. Also, it's not clear why they only grow at the given estimated rate. I don't think it's as simple as "plant more trees".

Flashtoo 5y ago
What happens in the Midwest that makes it a carbon sink? Growing crops that turn back into atmospheric CO2 within a couple of months would be carbon neutral at best. "The strong atmospheric sink in the agricultural region is consistent with the difference in the spatial distribution of agricultural production and product consumption: a strong atmospheric uptake by crops during the growing season in the Midwest states, while much of the release of carbon associated with consumption of agricultural products occurs in other regions, in the United States and abroad. It must thus be pointed out that this apparent atmospheric sink in the Midwest does not imply a long-term carbon sequestration" https://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18348 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18348 , Discussion
chiefalchemist 5y ago
I would interpret it as meaning: We're not going to curb our current bad habits; we're not going to stop the current trend...therefore we have come up with new / different ways to reverse (with changing modern conveniences) and eventually "outrun" the trend. Yeah, it sounds silly to me as well.
nitrogen 5y ago
What does that mean exactly? It sounds like they're talking about moving climate zone boundaries.
darth_avocado 5y ago
The greatest carbon sink in the world are actually our oceans, and we’re not even close to paying attention to their health. I think all modern takes on climate change have become very reductive. Yeah monoculturing dead forests isn’t a solution, but so is not doing anything. The ideal solution at this point frankly is to reduce human consumption and leaving large swaths of land to their own devices. Give them time to heal. (And provide some help with native flora and fauna if the land is too far gone to heal on its own).
- meristohm 5y ago
  Pollution and climate change fall squarely within Timothy Morton’s “hyperobject” definition. I accept what’s happening and I try to imagine it, and I accept that I fail to understand. I used to like E. O. Wilson’s half-earth idea, but it’s got an eracist undertone (or overtone if you can empathize with aboriginal people displaced from homelands in the interest of national parks and the many other reasons). The US National Park System is awesome, in part for the mission statement of perpetual stewardship, and it could be so much better. Allowing traditional land-use practices could help restore and preserve landscapes. We collectively need to reduce our energy-conversion demand and agree on government regulations that help keep a balance rather than promoting or allowing for exploitation. That kind of shift will not be easy. Feral, a book by George Monbiot, discusses rewilding in Wales. The New Wilderness, by Diane Cook, is fiction about a group of humans opting into a rewilding experiment, exchanging the amenities and stresses of the city for that of a generations-long series of camping trips.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  And the best way to do this is to stop consuming animal products, as the majority of our land worldwide used for agriculture is used to support animal culture. Moving away from consuming animals free huge portions of that land, as well as helps to heal the oceans which are devastated both by the byproducts of global warming, but also directly via overfishing. There is no version of halting global warming that does not involve reducing our reliance on eating animals and their secretions.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    I’d love if the folks downvoting would care to explain how what I’m saying is neither directly relevant nor true. I’m all ears.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
I will not endorse Mother Jones. However, "outrunning" is straightforward. A forest can "move" a certain amount a year — it is not motion of individual trees, but new trees and plants can grow where there were none before. If the extents of a forest are constrained by climate, and the boundaries of its climate zone moving at a speed which is slower than the trees can move, then the collection of organisms can meaningfully persist and be said to move north. If on the other hand the climate zones are moving too quickly, then sooner or later there will no longer exist a collection of trees and related organisms that functioned as this forest once did.
meristohm 5y ago
Unlike ents and huorns, terrestrial trees move over generations, thus outrunning, or maybe just keeping pace with, or losing the race against, climate change. Higher elevation tends to be colder. It’s not as simple as the plant populations moving upslope, though; some plants might have a wider tolerance range, and while evolution involves both competition and reciprocation, too much stress and/or too little time leads to extinction. Regarding tree growth, selectively logging, reducing soil compaction, and leaving or planting birch/alder/etc along with fir/pine/etc, so long as they’re tied into the mycelial networks of our Fungal Overlords will increase total tree mass [0]. Feel free to replace “mother tree” with “parent tree”, as Doug Fir, for example, are monoecious. [0] https://www.worldcat.org/title/finding-the-mother-tree-discovering-how-the-forest-is-wired-for-intelligence-and-healing/ https://www.worldcat.org/title/finding-the-mother-tree-disco...

Flashtoo 5y ago

What happens in the Midwest that makes it a carbon sink? Growing crops that turn back into atmospheric CO2 within a couple of months would be carbon neutral at best. "The strong atmospheric sink in the agricultural region is consistent with the difference in the spatial distribution of agricultural production and product consumption: a strong atmospheric uptake by crops during the growing season in the Midwest states, while much of the release of carbon associated with consumption of agricultural products occurs in other regions, in the United States and abroad. It must thus be pointed out that this apparent atmospheric sink in the Midwest does not imply a long-term carbon sequestration" https://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18348 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18348 , Discussion

chiefalchemist 5y ago

I would interpret it as meaning: We're not going to curb our current bad habits; we're not going to stop the current trend...therefore we have come up with new / different ways to reverse (with changing modern conveniences) and eventually "outrun" the trend. Yeah, it sounds silly to me as well.

nitrogen 5y ago

What does that mean exactly? It sounds like they're talking about moving climate zone boundaries.

darth_avocado 5y ago

The greatest carbon sink in the world are actually our oceans, and we’re not even close to paying attention to their health. I think all modern takes on climate change have become very reductive. Yeah monoculturing dead forests isn’t a solution, but so is not doing anything. The ideal solution at this point frankly is to reduce human consumption and leaving large swaths of land to their own devices. Give them time to heal. (And provide some help with native flora and fauna if the land is too far gone to heal on its own).

meristohm 5y ago
Pollution and climate change fall squarely within Timothy Morton’s “hyperobject” definition. I accept what’s happening and I try to imagine it, and I accept that I fail to understand. I used to like E. O. Wilson’s half-earth idea, but it’s got an eracist undertone (or overtone if you can empathize with aboriginal people displaced from homelands in the interest of national parks and the many other reasons). The US National Park System is awesome, in part for the mission statement of perpetual stewardship, and it could be so much better. Allowing traditional land-use practices could help restore and preserve landscapes. We collectively need to reduce our energy-conversion demand and agree on government regulations that help keep a balance rather than promoting or allowing for exploitation. That kind of shift will not be easy. Feral, a book by George Monbiot, discusses rewilding in Wales. The New Wilderness, by Diane Cook, is fiction about a group of humans opting into a rewilding experiment, exchanging the amenities and stresses of the city for that of a generations-long series of camping trips.
sweetheart 5y ago
And the best way to do this is to stop consuming animal products, as the majority of our land worldwide used for agriculture is used to support animal culture. Moving away from consuming animals free huge portions of that land, as well as helps to heal the oceans which are devastated both by the byproducts of global warming, but also directly via overfishing. There is no version of halting global warming that does not involve reducing our reliance on eating animals and their secretions.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  I’d love if the folks downvoting would care to explain how what I’m saying is neither directly relevant nor true. I’m all ears.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

I will not endorse Mother Jones. However, "outrunning" is straightforward. A forest can "move" a certain amount a year — it is not motion of individual trees, but new trees and plants can grow where there were none before. If the extents of a forest are constrained by climate, and the boundaries of its climate zone moving at a speed which is slower than the trees can move, then the collection of organisms can meaningfully persist and be said to move north. If on the other hand the climate zones are moving too quickly, then sooner or later there will no longer exist a collection of trees and related organisms that functioned as this forest once did.

meristohm 5y ago

Unlike ents and huorns, terrestrial trees move over generations, thus outrunning, or maybe just keeping pace with, or losing the race against, climate change. Higher elevation tends to be colder. It’s not as simple as the plant populations moving upslope, though; some plants might have a wider tolerance range, and while evolution involves both competition and reciprocation, too much stress and/or too little time leads to extinction. Regarding tree growth, selectively logging, reducing soil compaction, and leaving or planting birch/alder/etc along with fir/pine/etc, so long as they’re tied into the mycelial networks of our Fungal Overlords will increase total tree mass [0]. Feel free to replace “mother tree” with “parent tree”, as Doug Fir, for example, are monoecious. [0] https://www.worldcat.org/title/finding-the-mother-tree-discovering-how-the-forest-is-wired-for-intelligence-and-healing/ https://www.worldcat.org/title/finding-the-mother-tree-disco...