3 ms·

That's an interesting concept I had not considered. I also am not sure if "we" (collective) would roll it out that way. We have a track record of consuming reso

That's an interesting concept I had not considered. I also am not sure if "we" (collective) would roll it out that way. We have a track record of consuming resources in the easiest/cheapest way with minor consideration of the environment. I don't think we'd even view this as a worthy investment if all it did was help prevent the spread of deserts. We still can't even agree if climate change is real and what we should do about it.

colechristensen 4y ago
To rekindle your hope, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(Africa) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(Africa)
- conductr 4y ago
  That's interesting. Reminds me of when I was a kid and thought I had a completely unique idea to fill the Sahara with water! It will quickly evaporate and turn to a rainforest in no time!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sea
dylan604 4y ago
I have little trust in the "we" doing anything like this correctly, at first. By that, I mean that it will be the corps to do this as they are the ones with the money to do it. Corps being corps, they will lean into being themselves and extract all of the everything they can with little respect for anything other than their bottom line. I don't have faith gov't will do it either. Those opposed to climate change will argue it is money spent on fake science. It'll die in congress (for US, s/congress/localGovUselessBody/ for other places). Someone might get popular enough to crowd source fund it with an NGO type thing, but I'm not holding my breath there either.
- yonaguska 4y ago
  I hope you'll be more optimistic about government outcomes, at least as far as opposition is concerned. I think I'd fall under your bucket of people that are "opposed to climate change", and I put that in quotes, because, it's not that I don't believe in climate change or anything like that. I just don't believe that the current "green" initiatives are the correct way to go about solving climate issues. I do however consider myself an environmentalist. I care more about the non C02 pollution that we are causing than simply trying to reduce C02 emissions. I think you'd be hard pressed to find organic opposition to tackling environment issues that aren't related to the relatively abstract C02 pollution issues. I say organic because the corporations responsible for pollution will always find ways to manufacture consent that protects their own best interests. But, your stereotypical human-caused climate change denier is likely someone that hunts, fishes, or resides in a rural area, where environmental and conservationist concerns are taken very seriously, regardless of political affiliation. Your opposition is only going to come from people whose livelihood is affected by pollution controls. A broader swathe of people will always oppose addressing C02 related climate concerns because it affects literally everyone's bottom line in the form of rising cost of goods with energy prices going up, and it has abstract consequences, rather than concrete ones like your local streams being poisoned, or your well water going bad because the aquifer has been contaminated.

colechristensen 4y ago

To rekindle your hope, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(Africa) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(Africa)

conductr 4y ago
That's interesting. Reminds me of when I was a kid and thought I had a completely unique idea to fill the Sahara with water! It will quickly evaporate and turn to a rainforest in no time!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sea

dylan604 4y ago

I have little trust in the "we" doing anything like this correctly, at first. By that, I mean that it will be the corps to do this as they are the ones with the money to do it. Corps being corps, they will lean into being themselves and extract all of the everything they can with little respect for anything other than their bottom line. I don't have faith gov't will do it either. Those opposed to climate change will argue it is money spent on fake science. It'll die in congress (for US, s/congress/localGovUselessBody/ for other places). Someone might get popular enough to crowd source fund it with an NGO type thing, but I'm not holding my breath there either.

yonaguska 4y ago
I hope you'll be more optimistic about government outcomes, at least as far as opposition is concerned. I think I'd fall under your bucket of people that are "opposed to climate change", and I put that in quotes, because, it's not that I don't believe in climate change or anything like that. I just don't believe that the current "green" initiatives are the correct way to go about solving climate issues. I do however consider myself an environmentalist. I care more about the non C02 pollution that we are causing than simply trying to reduce C02 emissions. I think you'd be hard pressed to find organic opposition to tackling environment issues that aren't related to the relatively abstract C02 pollution issues. I say organic because the corporations responsible for pollution will always find ways to manufacture consent that protects their own best interests. But, your stereotypical human-caused climate change denier is likely someone that hunts, fishes, or resides in a rural area, where environmental and conservationist concerns are taken very seriously, regardless of political affiliation. Your opposition is only going to come from people whose livelihood is affected by pollution controls. A broader swathe of people will always oppose addressing C02 related climate concerns because it affects literally everyone's bottom line in the form of rising cost of goods with energy prices going up, and it has abstract consequences, rather than concrete ones like your local streams being poisoned, or your well water going bad because the aquifer has been contaminated.