10 ms·

Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago

145 points by Podgajski 3y ago

antiquark 3y ago
Statistically, this paper seems weak. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396
geff82 3y ago
Isn't that in contrast to https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/ https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization... ?
- itishappy 3y ago
  > The declines challenge an argument often presented by skeptics of mainstream climate science to downplay the consequences of global warming: the idea that plants will grow faster with larger amounts of carbon dioxide. The argument hinges on the idea that food supplies will increase. > It’s largely a red herring, as climate scientists have patiently explained for years. Rising CO2 does benefit plants, at least up to a point, but it’s just one factor. Plants are also affected by many other symptoms of climate change, including rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, shifts in water availability and so on.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    You're thinking in terms of sides rather than facts. I think the question is the following: the NASA article seems to indicate that the Earth is getting greener. The headline in the posted article says no greening has occurred. Which is correct?
    - itishappy 3y ago
      I linked a quote from the article without commentary. I am very intentionally not thinking at all. Which NASA article are you referencing?
      - croisillon 3y ago
        the one you were originally replying to :)
        itishappy 3y ago
        Got it (there's another linked further up the thread). Let's think! The NASA article claims our planet became greener from 1982-2015. The new study agrees the earth became significantly greener in the 80s and 90s, but the trend started reversing in the 2000s. I think they do not necessarily contradict each another.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        That would be the case if the NASA article was "The earth became greener from 1985-2000", but that's not the case. I think the quotes you cited earlier, which add up to "The baddies say this; here's a superficial response you can brush them off with", are indicative of the problem with politicised science. No one will admit that things might not be as they are constantly communicated to be, generally by communicators who are not scientists. In this case: it's interesting that CO2 has a negative feedback loop where less CO2 means fewer plants, increasing CO2, and more CO2 means more plants, decreasing CO2; have climate models taken this into account (enough)?
        kbutler 3y ago
        Nasa also says the world was greening 2000-2017 https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activ... 5% increase in leaf area over the period (from CO2 and land-use changes) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 The paper for this thread https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 also addresses data generally ending in 2015, and says "all four LAI [Leaf Area Index] datasets exhibited a transition from increasing trends before the late 1990s to decreasing trends afterward (fig. S5)" Those claims appear to be in direct contradiction, and I don't see any immediate way to reconcile them.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  The article you linked is based on the difference between 1985 and 2015, while the article OP links is based on shorter and more recent data spans. Sadly, NASA's link to the original article is now dead. A large increase between 1985 and 2000, followed by a slow decrease between 2000 and now would perfectly fit both assertions.
- maverick74 3y ago
  oh... that's funny because i was going to share another link: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...
andsoitis 3y ago
> Declining plant growth is linked to decreasing air moisture tied to global warming Atmospheric water vapor increases as the climate warms. https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steam... Since the late 1800s, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius). Data from satellites, weather balloons, and ground measurements confirm the amount of atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the climate warms. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.) For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics.
- itishappy 3y ago
  > Vapor pressure deficit (VPD), which describes the difference between the water vapor pressure at saturation and the actual water vapor pressure for a given temperature, is an important driver of atmospheric water demand for plants (1). Rising air temperature increases saturated water vapor pressure at a rate of approximately 7%/K according to the Clauius-Clapeyron relationship, which will drive an increase in VPD if the actual atmospheric water vapor content does not increase by exactly the same amount as saturated vapor pressure (SVP). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396
  - osjrnngoxifr982 3y ago
    This is a commonly overlooked factor in gardening and agriculture especially in beginners.
    - wgj 3y ago
      As a beginner gardener, I'm curious. How is this applied in practical terms? (eli5)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DrThunder 3y ago
"That’s not to say every last corner of Earth is losing its vegetation. Some recent studies have revealed that parts of the Arctic are “greening” as the chilly landscape warms. And there’s increasing plant growth still happening in other regions of the world, as well." So, a sensationalist headline. The H20 on Earth doesn't change, it might shift to other areas, like has for billions of years. Climate change or not we've always had shifting biomes, which is why we've got deserts in areas now that were essentially jungles in the past.
- jmpwat 3y ago
  Technically - but greening in the arctic is bad news for us https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1858/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1858/
- boplicity 3y ago
  Actually, it is quite alarming if the Arctic is turning green. That itself is sensationalist. One of the primary ways our planet cools itself is by reflecting heat back into space. A white arctic is very efficient at reflecting heat. Green is not so good at that. In terms of shifting biomes -- there used to be alligators that lived in the arctic. We seem determined to make that possible again. Such a world would be drastically different than the one we live in now. Such possibilities are indeed alarming.
  - DrThunder 3y ago
    The title wasn't about the arctic. It literally says THE EARTH stopped getting greener. This is a lie.
- flavius29663 3y ago
  > The H20 on Earth doesn't change It actually does. That is the whole premise behind global warming. CO2 alone would not be able to warm up the planet more than 1C - and that is if we keep burning fuels at max rate with no reduction. The idea is that the 1C warming will cause the hotter air to support more water vapor, and water vapor is a much more potent gas than CO2, so it will warm the Earth additionally 2-3 or even 4C if we don't stop the CO2 emissions. This is the positive feedback loop. There are other feedback loops - some are negative and work towards decreasing the impact, for example the greening of the planet: if plants have more CO2, they will grow faster, bigger and be more resilient to drought, so they will absorb more CO2 overall. If the "idea" above wouldn't be true, there would be no global warming crisis.
thefascistleft 3y ago
[dead]
vixen99 3y ago
The title seems (unless the data since 2016 tells a different story) at odds with the 2016 Nature paper by Zhu et.al and others who conclude from satellite observations that "show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning)". They add "Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.".\\ https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
agentultra 3y ago
And considering how much vegetation was burned away this year in forest fires alone, I'm curious to see if there will be any regrowth. "You have so much land, Canada, why is everyone huddled along the border?" Maybe one reason, not exactly an intentional one, is that it benefits us to have has much untouched, forested and wild lands as possible? Maybe we should be building fewer roads that cut migratory paths and disrupt forested regions, fewer suburban communities, and manage forests and vegetation better in this crisis. Dunno, maybe living in urban neighbourhoods is better for us and the environment?
- bequanna 3y ago
  This comment really irks me as someone who lives in a rural area. The typical urbanite attitude seems to be that everything outside the city should be untouched, pristine wilderness which exists only for their occasional amusement when they feel like hiking, camping or bike riding.
  - afterburner 3y ago
    It's ok, the actual real reason urbanites live in the city is for the jobs, and for all the other people they know there, that are also there for jobs. That said green belts are great for stopping urban sprawl. They don't extend indefinitely though and they certainly don't uproot existing small towns/villages.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      I try to live in urban areas because walkability measurably improves my health in every metric.
      - afterburner 3y ago
        To be honest I was mostly trying to reassure the reactionary urbanite-hater that we aren't trying to take their stuff.
  - RIMR 3y ago
achow 3y ago
NASA Feb 2019 The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: China and India. A new study shows that the two emerging countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activ...
- jmartrican 3y ago
  Who is correct?
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Corollary: Is their correctness mutually exclusive?
    - relaxing 3y ago
      Unfortunately this Nature article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 ) is behind a paywall, but the NASA summary implies they measured "leaf area". The Science article (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 ) claims Leaf Area Index (same or different measure than the Nature study?) "exhibited a transition from increasing trends before the late 1990s to decreasing trends afterward". So at first blush yes, but the details will doubtlessly prove otherwise. If anyone has an institutional login and can post a pdf, please do.
      - ylere 3y ago
        https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-01...
_justinfunk 3y ago
> It’s largely a red herring, as climate scientists have patiently explained for years. This sort of editorialization does not help the conversation.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
> Declining plant growth is linked to decreasing air moisture tied to global warming I thought air moisture was increasing because of global warming, because evaporation from oceans increases and warmer air can hold more moisture. I'm confused. Certainly, the trend here in the UK is that we're getting, and will continue to get, more rain because of that.
- legulere 3y ago
  Warm water also increases evapotranspriration over land, which can dry out the land.
GravityLab 3y ago
Plant more trees! Don't underestimate the impact that planting even just one or two trees as an individual can have. It's also a lot of fun.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  Somehow people want to end everything even if they don't have a stake in the opposite. Where I live is a quite small nature park in a desert ; it rains here, it's green, it works. But when you say plant trees, they say it doesn't matter unless it's 1000s of km2. It's not. This is much smaller and it looks like a cartoon cloud above this place when it rains as everything around is completely dry. Not sure why people don't just try; they'll see it works, but he.
  - GravityLab 3y ago
    I am glad to hear that it rains and is green in that corner of the desert, my friend. That is a beautiful image indeed. I am really excited about the possibility of reforesting in deserts, although deserts are beautiful habitats in themselves so we should definitely keep deserts around too. I think people just feel defeated as individuals because they read only doomer content on climate change and as a result they feel overwhelmed unless some larger entity takes on the fight on their behalf. They've come to underestimate the impact individuals can have in effecting great change. I'm optimistic that little by little things can improve and that people can enjoy having a fun time contributing to the fight in positive ways as individuals.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      >They've come to underestimate the impact individuals can have in effecting great change. The tiny thing the GP is talking about, a small park, is completely out of reach of individuals. Small communities can have an impact. But the only thing individuals can do is to pick what initiatives they support and what they wont have any piece of.
      - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

145 points by Podgajski 3y ago

Statistically, this paper seems weak. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396

geff82 3y ago

Isn't that in contrast to https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/ https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization... ?

itishappy 3y ago
> The declines challenge an argument often presented by skeptics of mainstream climate science to downplay the consequences of global warming: the idea that plants will grow faster with larger amounts of carbon dioxide. The argument hinges on the idea that food supplies will increase. > It’s largely a red herring, as climate scientists have patiently explained for years. Rising CO2 does benefit plants, at least up to a point, but it’s just one factor. Plants are also affected by many other symptoms of climate change, including rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, shifts in water availability and so on.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  You're thinking in terms of sides rather than facts. I think the question is the following: the NASA article seems to indicate that the Earth is getting greener. The headline in the posted article says no greening has occurred. Which is correct?
  - itishappy 3y ago
    I linked a quote from the article without commentary. I am very intentionally not thinking at all. Which NASA article are you referencing?
    - croisillon 3y ago
      the one you were originally replying to :)
      - itishappy 3y ago
        Got it (there's another linked further up the thread). Let's think! The NASA article claims our planet became greener from 1982-2015. The new study agrees the earth became significantly greener in the 80s and 90s, but the trend started reversing in the 2000s. I think they do not necessarily contradict each another.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        That would be the case if the NASA article was "The earth became greener from 1985-2000", but that's not the case. I think the quotes you cited earlier, which add up to "The baddies say this; here's a superficial response you can brush them off with", are indicative of the problem with politicised science. No one will admit that things might not be as they are constantly communicated to be, generally by communicators who are not scientists. In this case: it's interesting that CO2 has a negative feedback loop where less CO2 means fewer plants, increasing CO2, and more CO2 means more plants, decreasing CO2; have climate models taken this into account (enough)?
        kbutler 3y ago
        Nasa also says the world was greening 2000-2017 https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activ... 5% increase in leaf area over the period (from CO2 and land-use changes) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 The paper for this thread https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 also addresses data generally ending in 2015, and says "all four LAI [Leaf Area Index] datasets exhibited a transition from increasing trends before the late 1990s to decreasing trends afterward (fig. S5)" Those claims appear to be in direct contradiction, and I don't see any immediate way to reconcile them.
jeroenhd 3y ago
The article you linked is based on the difference between 1985 and 2015, while the article OP links is based on shorter and more recent data spans. Sadly, NASA's link to the original article is now dead. A large increase between 1985 and 2000, followed by a slow decrease between 2000 and now would perfectly fit both assertions.
maverick74 3y ago
oh... that's funny because i was going to share another link: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...

andsoitis 3y ago

> Declining plant growth is linked to decreasing air moisture tied to global warming Atmospheric water vapor increases as the climate warms. https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steam... Since the late 1800s, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius). Data from satellites, weather balloons, and ground measurements confirm the amount of atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the climate warms. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.) For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

itishappy 3y ago
> Vapor pressure deficit (VPD), which describes the difference between the water vapor pressure at saturation and the actual water vapor pressure for a given temperature, is an important driver of atmospheric water demand for plants (1). Rising air temperature increases saturated water vapor pressure at a rate of approximately 7%/K according to the Clauius-Clapeyron relationship, which will drive an increase in VPD if the actual atmospheric water vapor content does not increase by exactly the same amount as saturated vapor pressure (SVP). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396
- osjrnngoxifr982 3y ago
  This is a commonly overlooked factor in gardening and agriculture especially in beginners.
  - wgj 3y ago
    As a beginner gardener, I'm curious. How is this applied in practical terms? (eli5)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

DrThunder 3y ago

"That’s not to say every last corner of Earth is losing its vegetation. Some recent studies have revealed that parts of the Arctic are “greening” as the chilly landscape warms. And there’s increasing plant growth still happening in other regions of the world, as well." So, a sensationalist headline. The H20 on Earth doesn't change, it might shift to other areas, like has for billions of years. Climate change or not we've always had shifting biomes, which is why we've got deserts in areas now that were essentially jungles in the past.

jmpwat 3y ago
Technically - but greening in the arctic is bad news for us https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1858/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1858/
boplicity 3y ago
Actually, it is quite alarming if the Arctic is turning green. That itself is sensationalist. One of the primary ways our planet cools itself is by reflecting heat back into space. A white arctic is very efficient at reflecting heat. Green is not so good at that. In terms of shifting biomes -- there used to be alligators that lived in the arctic. We seem determined to make that possible again. Such a world would be drastically different than the one we live in now. Such possibilities are indeed alarming.
- DrThunder 3y ago
  The title wasn't about the arctic. It literally says THE EARTH stopped getting greener. This is a lie.
flavius29663 3y ago
> The H20 on Earth doesn't change It actually does. That is the whole premise behind global warming. CO2 alone would not be able to warm up the planet more than 1C - and that is if we keep burning fuels at max rate with no reduction. The idea is that the 1C warming will cause the hotter air to support more water vapor, and water vapor is a much more potent gas than CO2, so it will warm the Earth additionally 2-3 or even 4C if we don't stop the CO2 emissions. This is the positive feedback loop. There are other feedback loops - some are negative and work towards decreasing the impact, for example the greening of the planet: if plants have more CO2, they will grow faster, bigger and be more resilient to drought, so they will absorb more CO2 overall. If the "idea" above wouldn't be true, there would be no global warming crisis.

thefascistleft 3y ago

[dead]

vixen99 3y ago

The title seems (unless the data since 2016 tells a different story) at odds with the 2016 Nature paper by Zhu et.al and others who conclude from satellite observations that "show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning)". They add "Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.".\\ https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

agentultra 3y ago

And considering how much vegetation was burned away this year in forest fires alone, I'm curious to see if there will be any regrowth. "You have so much land, Canada, why is everyone huddled along the border?" Maybe one reason, not exactly an intentional one, is that it benefits us to have has much untouched, forested and wild lands as possible? Maybe we should be building fewer roads that cut migratory paths and disrupt forested regions, fewer suburban communities, and manage forests and vegetation better in this crisis. Dunno, maybe living in urban neighbourhoods is better for us and the environment?

bequanna 3y ago
This comment really irks me as someone who lives in a rural area. The typical urbanite attitude seems to be that everything outside the city should be untouched, pristine wilderness which exists only for their occasional amusement when they feel like hiking, camping or bike riding.
- afterburner 3y ago
  It's ok, the actual real reason urbanites live in the city is for the jobs, and for all the other people they know there, that are also there for jobs. That said green belts are great for stopping urban sprawl. They don't extend indefinitely though and they certainly don't uproot existing small towns/villages.
  - t-writescode 3y ago
    I try to live in urban areas because walkability measurably improves my health in every metric.
    - afterburner 3y ago
      To be honest I was mostly trying to reassure the reactionary urbanite-hater that we aren't trying to take their stuff.
- RIMR 3y ago

achow 3y ago

NASA Feb 2019 The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: China and India. A new study shows that the two emerging countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activ...

jmartrican 3y ago
Who is correct?
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Corollary: Is their correctness mutually exclusive?
  - relaxing 3y ago
    Unfortunately this Nature article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 ) is behind a paywall, but the NASA summary implies they measured "leaf area". The Science article (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 ) claims Leaf Area Index (same or different measure than the Nature study?) "exhibited a transition from increasing trends before the late 1990s to decreasing trends afterward". So at first blush yes, but the details will doubtlessly prove otherwise. If anyone has an institutional login and can post a pdf, please do.
    - ylere 3y ago
      https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-01...

_justinfunk 3y ago

> It’s largely a red herring, as climate scientists have patiently explained for years. This sort of editorialization does not help the conversation.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

> Declining plant growth is linked to decreasing air moisture tied to global warming I thought air moisture was increasing because of global warming, because evaporation from oceans increases and warmer air can hold more moisture. I'm confused. Certainly, the trend here in the UK is that we're getting, and will continue to get, more rain because of that.

legulere 3y ago
Warm water also increases evapotranspriration over land, which can dry out the land.

GravityLab 3y ago

Plant more trees! Don't underestimate the impact that planting even just one or two trees as an individual can have. It's also a lot of fun.

anonzzzies 3y ago
Somehow people want to end everything even if they don't have a stake in the opposite. Where I live is a quite small nature park in a desert ; it rains here, it's green, it works. But when you say plant trees, they say it doesn't matter unless it's 1000s of km2. It's not. This is much smaller and it looks like a cartoon cloud above this place when it rains as everything around is completely dry. Not sure why people don't just try; they'll see it works, but he.
- GravityLab 3y ago
  I am glad to hear that it rains and is green in that corner of the desert, my friend. That is a beautiful image indeed. I am really excited about the possibility of reforesting in deserts, although deserts are beautiful habitats in themselves so we should definitely keep deserts around too. I think people just feel defeated as individuals because they read only doomer content on climate change and as a result they feel overwhelmed unless some larger entity takes on the fight on their behalf. They've come to underestimate the impact individuals can have in effecting great change. I'm optimistic that little by little things can improve and that people can enjoy having a fun time contributing to the fight in positive ways as individuals.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    >They've come to underestimate the impact individuals can have in effecting great change. The tiny thing the GP is talking about, a small park, is completely out of reach of individuals. Small communities can have an impact. But the only thing individuals can do is to pick what initiatives they support and what they wont have any piece of.
    - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]