4 ms·

Maybe we can get off our but(t)s and start restoring wetlands like our lives depend upon it. (Ah, hark, I hear crickets chirping.)

devjab 3y ago
In some areas the climate change is creating too much “wetland” which poses a different set of issues. We’ve had record amounts of rain here in Denmark, and the local farmers should probably look into farming rice, or maybe seaweed, if it continues. Which it probably will since the records we broke were set in 2019, which in term broke records set one of the years before that and so on. Looking at the graphs, however, we should go back to covid society, well, without all the dying. That basically put us on a better track than what we need for almost two years. I’m optimistic though. This year alone has been a massive impact on the global economy in terms of climate costs. Which in term have our local politicians actually talking about solutions. Many of them are focused on being better prepared, but some of them are also waking up to the fact that large parts of our country will be basically inhabitable unless something is done. Not sure why it took them 50 years to get there, but it is what it is.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  FYI Bali Rice Experiment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37140831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37140831
- roschdal 3y ago
  > we should go back to covid society Yes, covid society was better for the environment and humans.
- vasco 3y ago
  > Looking at the graphs, however, we should go back to covid society, well, without all the dying. With the dying you save the environment way faster. "We should go back to covid society" just means let's all be ascetic monks. There's too many people in the world. We don't need more wetlands or this or that, we just need to understand that a population that grows without limits always destroys itself, that's all. What's the point of a planet with billions of people if their lives suck and they have to stay home using their CO2 quotas? Much better to have less people living normally.
  - mantas 3y ago
    We'd need a human beings cap in millions to have a lavish lifestyle with managable consequences to environment. And probably in low hundrends. And even then if everybody lived like a king we'd be fucked. I'd also say that more asceticism would produce a healthier society. Current western consumerist society isn't healthy for anybody. Neither the planet, nor humans.
  - thworp 3y ago
    Since I rarely get to talk to Malthusians: Do you have a preferred approach for population reduction? Tangential point: You severely underestimate the impact of scale and specialization on our standard of living. There is no way we could the same variety of nice things at 500million people
    - defrost 3y ago
      > Do you have a preferred approach for population reduction? Streaming TV and Education. Educating women, in particular, is strongly correlated with population reduction across the globe. Two generations of that and the world could be stabilising a billion and half below where we are today.
    - vasco 3y ago
      It's happening already, I'd just not create incentive programs to boost birthrates. I don't like to take a very heavy handed way to "control" society, think it's better to just let some things happen the way they happen, because if I'm wrong at least I didn't go full on. But the most developed / educated countries are already going down fast except for immigration. Once the countries immigrants come from rise to the same economic levels, I would predict their birth rates would also go down. To your tangential point: I think technological development will allow less and less people needed on the supply chain to sustain the same quality of life for society. I think this is clear from history and it only goes in one direction. I'm aware there's people that defend more extreme views like boosting abortions or other dystopian measures. I don't believe in any of those, I think everyone should have the right to reproduce if they feel like it, I'd just rather it be an informed decision, but I wouldn't add any control measures for fear of abusive mis-use by the government later on.
MrVandemar 3y ago
Farmer here. Planted about 1,000 native trees this year in our home-grown revegetation project, and going to spend the next 2 years making sure as many of them as possible don't die. No govt subsidies or anything. Our own $ and our own work. Nobody will do it, nobody will pay to do it, so we do.
- haizhung 3y ago
  You would think that this is exactly the kind of project that carbon offsets should fund…
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Thank you, "God bless you" as they say in the Deep South where I grew up. Please consider making part of it a wetlands. Forests cover about 10 percent of the planet and store about 15 percent of stored carbon. Peatlands cover about 3 percent of the planet and store an estimated 25 or 30 percent of carbon. We've lost 85 of global wetlands since the 1700s. Restoring them could dramatically increase the amount of stored carbon.
  - oliwarner 3y ago
    Peatland takes centuries to develop and store that carbon though. If we want to achieve this sort of thing, we'd need to manufacture peat and store that underwater. Possible but when we make more, we usually destroy the planet more too. I'm not sure we'd offset it.
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      "The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best is today." For the short-term, planting rice differently can reduce methane emissions substantially. In the short-term, methane is much worse. In the long run, methane breaks down to carbon which persists. If we want to reverse climate change, we need to restore nature's ability to sink that carbon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37140831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37140831 (My previous comment should say "85 percent". Oops.)
mips_r4300i 3y ago
Been donating to Ducks Unlimited here in the US for years. Their angle is to protect the hunting pastime, but to that end involves getting involved with many states' local issues to keep the wetlands protected. Just a drop in the bucket, but hey.

devjab 3y ago

In some areas the climate change is creating too much “wetland” which poses a different set of issues. We’ve had record amounts of rain here in Denmark, and the local farmers should probably look into farming rice, or maybe seaweed, if it continues. Which it probably will since the records we broke were set in 2019, which in term broke records set one of the years before that and so on. Looking at the graphs, however, we should go back to covid society, well, without all the dying. That basically put us on a better track than what we need for almost two years. I’m optimistic though. This year alone has been a massive impact on the global economy in terms of climate costs. Which in term have our local politicians actually talking about solutions. Many of them are focused on being better prepared, but some of them are also waking up to the fact that large parts of our country will be basically inhabitable unless something is done. Not sure why it took them 50 years to get there, but it is what it is.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
FYI Bali Rice Experiment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37140831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37140831
roschdal 3y ago
> we should go back to covid society Yes, covid society was better for the environment and humans.
vasco 3y ago
> Looking at the graphs, however, we should go back to covid society, well, without all the dying. With the dying you save the environment way faster. "We should go back to covid society" just means let's all be ascetic monks. There's too many people in the world. We don't need more wetlands or this or that, we just need to understand that a population that grows without limits always destroys itself, that's all. What's the point of a planet with billions of people if their lives suck and they have to stay home using their CO2 quotas? Much better to have less people living normally.
- mantas 3y ago
  We'd need a human beings cap in millions to have a lavish lifestyle with managable consequences to environment. And probably in low hundrends. And even then if everybody lived like a king we'd be fucked. I'd also say that more asceticism would produce a healthier society. Current western consumerist society isn't healthy for anybody. Neither the planet, nor humans.
- thworp 3y ago
  Since I rarely get to talk to Malthusians: Do you have a preferred approach for population reduction? Tangential point: You severely underestimate the impact of scale and specialization on our standard of living. There is no way we could the same variety of nice things at 500million people
  - defrost 3y ago
    > Do you have a preferred approach for population reduction? Streaming TV and Education. Educating women, in particular, is strongly correlated with population reduction across the globe. Two generations of that and the world could be stabilising a billion and half below where we are today.
  - vasco 3y ago
    It's happening already, I'd just not create incentive programs to boost birthrates. I don't like to take a very heavy handed way to "control" society, think it's better to just let some things happen the way they happen, because if I'm wrong at least I didn't go full on. But the most developed / educated countries are already going down fast except for immigration. Once the countries immigrants come from rise to the same economic levels, I would predict their birth rates would also go down. To your tangential point: I think technological development will allow less and less people needed on the supply chain to sustain the same quality of life for society. I think this is clear from history and it only goes in one direction. I'm aware there's people that defend more extreme views like boosting abortions or other dystopian measures. I don't believe in any of those, I think everyone should have the right to reproduce if they feel like it, I'd just rather it be an informed decision, but I wouldn't add any control measures for fear of abusive mis-use by the government later on.

MrVandemar 3y ago

Farmer here. Planted about 1,000 native trees this year in our home-grown revegetation project, and going to spend the next 2 years making sure as many of them as possible don't die. No govt subsidies or anything. Our own $ and our own work. Nobody will do it, nobody will pay to do it, so we do.

haizhung 3y ago
You would think that this is exactly the kind of project that carbon offsets should fund…
DoreenMichele 3y ago
Thank you, "God bless you" as they say in the Deep South where I grew up. Please consider making part of it a wetlands. Forests cover about 10 percent of the planet and store about 15 percent of stored carbon. Peatlands cover about 3 percent of the planet and store an estimated 25 or 30 percent of carbon. We've lost 85 of global wetlands since the 1700s. Restoring them could dramatically increase the amount of stored carbon.
- oliwarner 3y ago
  Peatland takes centuries to develop and store that carbon though. If we want to achieve this sort of thing, we'd need to manufacture peat and store that underwater. Possible but when we make more, we usually destroy the planet more too. I'm not sure we'd offset it.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    "The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best is today." For the short-term, planting rice differently can reduce methane emissions substantially. In the short-term, methane is much worse. In the long run, methane breaks down to carbon which persists. If we want to reverse climate change, we need to restore nature's ability to sink that carbon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37140831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37140831 (My previous comment should say "85 percent". Oops.)

mips_r4300i 3y ago

Been donating to Ducks Unlimited here in the US for years. Their angle is to protect the hunting pastime, but to that end involves getting involved with many states' local issues to keep the wetlands protected. Just a drop in the bucket, but hey.