4 ms·

This is both surprising and unsurprising, but also potentially misses the point. If the trees lost are in the Amazon and that's a giant filter for the planet, t

This is both surprising and unsurprising, but also potentially misses the point. If the trees lost are in the Amazon and that's a giant filter for the planet, then it doesn't really matter if we planted trees somewhere else if the environmental impact isn't directly offset. Also, it was only about 45 years ago that we had rivers catching on fire so an improvement over that doesn't mean that we've magically fixed all of our environmental issues.

tomrod 4y ago
AFAIK we are more like 53 years past that point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River EDIT: Ah! you updated to 45 from 35. That makes more sense.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  You did the homework, I estimated.
40four 4y ago
Why wouldn’t it matter if we’ve planted trees elsewhere? Nobody is suggesting we’ve magically fixed every environmental issue, but wouldn’t you rather see trends like total number of trees (or number of rivers catching on fire, as you put it) trend in the right direction? I take it as a cautiously optimistic signal that people/ governments are paying attention to the problems at hand, and making progress. This is a good thing, unless you really ARE hoping for some sort of magical one off fix.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  It’s not that it isn’t positive, but as another poster said astutely, a tree <> tree. Love me some trees, glad we are planting them, but that doesn’t mean that putting a rando tree in my front yard is actually having any meaningful impact over not cutting down a tree in the Amazon.
  - senko 4y ago
    Do you have influence over those that cut down a tree in the Amazon? If so, it would definitely be better if you could persuade them to stop. If you don't, planting a rando tree in your back yard still does more good for the planet than not doing so.
    - tern 4y ago
      There are huge geopolitical forces fighting to preserve the Amazon. The cost of deforestation is quantified and states pay millions if not billions (I forget the numbers) to people in order to leave it untouched. Of course, it's political and 'we're not doing enough,' etc. but individuals have more influence over the Amazon than most things. Great podcast on the subject: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/people-i-mostly-admire/id1525936566?i=1000543196174 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/people-i-mostly-admire...
      - lupire 4y ago
        Preserve is a long way from restore, though.
        tern 4y ago
        Indeed, true restoration involves investment in forest engineering and returning to more indigenous ways of life. I was recently on the Amazon with relevant scientists and activists. There's a lot of work to do and little financial incentive. If you're wondering, the best thing you can do as an individual, besides getting involved in international politics, is go do an eco-tour (or otherwise support that industry), provided you don't think the benefit is offset by the plane flight. The people doing the deforestation need alternative sources of livelihood.
    - pharrington 4y ago
      I guarantee there are multiple HN posters that do have influence over Amazonian deforestation.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > Nobody is suggesting we’ve magically fixed every environmental issue, but wouldn’t you rather see trends like total number of trees (or number of rivers catching on fire, as you put it) trend in the right direction? Sure, but if there are 100 relevant indicators that contribute to climate change or other environmental issues, and you're actively selecting the 5 indicators that seems positive and reporting on those regardless of the overall trends, that's not great (I'd argue that would be deliberately dishonest). But sure, if you're just randomly curious about the trend in tree population and you look it up and it looks positive, then sure, I suppose you could be pleased.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
What is a giant filter for the planet?

tomrod 4y ago

AFAIK we are more like 53 years past that point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River EDIT: Ah! you updated to 45 from 35. That makes more sense.

poulsbohemian 4y ago
You did the homework, I estimated.

40four 4y ago

Why wouldn’t it matter if we’ve planted trees elsewhere? Nobody is suggesting we’ve magically fixed every environmental issue, but wouldn’t you rather see trends like total number of trees (or number of rivers catching on fire, as you put it) trend in the right direction? I take it as a cautiously optimistic signal that people/ governments are paying attention to the problems at hand, and making progress. This is a good thing, unless you really ARE hoping for some sort of magical one off fix.

poulsbohemian 4y ago
It’s not that it isn’t positive, but as another poster said astutely, a tree <> tree. Love me some trees, glad we are planting them, but that doesn’t mean that putting a rando tree in my front yard is actually having any meaningful impact over not cutting down a tree in the Amazon.
- senko 4y ago
  Do you have influence over those that cut down a tree in the Amazon? If so, it would definitely be better if you could persuade them to stop. If you don't, planting a rando tree in your back yard still does more good for the planet than not doing so.
  - tern 4y ago
    There are huge geopolitical forces fighting to preserve the Amazon. The cost of deforestation is quantified and states pay millions if not billions (I forget the numbers) to people in order to leave it untouched. Of course, it's political and 'we're not doing enough,' etc. but individuals have more influence over the Amazon than most things. Great podcast on the subject: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/people-i-mostly-admire/id1525936566?i=1000543196174 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/people-i-mostly-admire...
    - lupire 4y ago
      Preserve is a long way from restore, though.
      - tern 4y ago
        Indeed, true restoration involves investment in forest engineering and returning to more indigenous ways of life. I was recently on the Amazon with relevant scientists and activists. There's a lot of work to do and little financial incentive. If you're wondering, the best thing you can do as an individual, besides getting involved in international politics, is go do an eco-tour (or otherwise support that industry), provided you don't think the benefit is offset by the plane flight. The people doing the deforestation need alternative sources of livelihood.
  - pharrington 4y ago
    I guarantee there are multiple HN posters that do have influence over Amazonian deforestation.
tshaddox 4y ago
> Nobody is suggesting we’ve magically fixed every environmental issue, but wouldn’t you rather see trends like total number of trees (or number of rivers catching on fire, as you put it) trend in the right direction? Sure, but if there are 100 relevant indicators that contribute to climate change or other environmental issues, and you're actively selecting the 5 indicators that seems positive and reporting on those regardless of the overall trends, that's not great (I'd argue that would be deliberately dishonest). But sure, if you're just randomly curious about the trend in tree population and you look it up and it looks positive, then sure, I suppose you could be pleased.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

What is a giant filter for the planet?