17 ms·

Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

• woodpanel 2y ago
  Even though climate-wise, the need for trees is overrated IMO – recently the list of benefits that forests provide has been extended: - More forests protect a country against sudden supply chain crises. It's is just a small protection (and only for the commodity wood) but still - Forests are the first line of defense in drone warfare as we've seen in the War in Ukraine, where maneuvers are often concentrating on, and gains are counted in, Tree-Lines.
• GrumpyNl 2y ago
  I can not emphasize this enough, we need more and better trees.
• jillyboel 2y ago
  What will the united states do? Keep shitting out CO2 with no regard to the climate?
• xkbarkar 2y ago
  The greyed out downvoted comments in this thread makes it look like that dreaded echo chamber that must not be named here. HN threads are usually much better quality than this ( anyone with opposed ideas are downvoted to oblivion ). Rubbish thread. Nothing to learn here.
• Myrmornis 2y ago
  What is the planned species composition? Are the plans aimed at restoring natural habitat, or are they primarily using trees as a means to some other end?
• ungreased0675 2y ago
  Will the forests be open to the public for hiking, fishing, hunting, etc?
• K0balt 2y ago
  Without my glasses and morning caffeine dose, I read that Denmark was going to plant 18 trees and convert 10percent of its farmland into forest. Not really knowing anything about Denmark, I briefly imagined that Denmark was either much, much smaller than I had originally supposed , or that it had very, very little agricultural density. Sometimes these idiotic musings and the little chuckle I get internally are the brighter part of my morning. Even in fading vision there are things to appreciate.
• silexia 2y ago
  Farmer here. Attacks on agriculture have historically lead to famines.
• silexia 2y ago
  Coming soon... "Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of citizens into healthy mulch.
• dataflow 2y ago
  Anyone know if they plan to chop down the trees when they grow and use the wood somehow, so they can capture more carbon through growing new trees?
  • geewee 2y ago
    Yes, some of the forests will be untouched nature but a good chunk of it will be for timber production.
    • dataflow 2y ago
      Awesome, thanks!
• sidcool 2y ago
  Didn't Bill Gates once say that planting trees has no impact on global warming?
  • notRobot 2y ago
    Trees absolutely can help with climate change, although like everything in this universe, there are nuances at play, such as type of tree, location, etc. We have done a lot of deforestation, and that absolutely has negatively impacted our climate, and we should work to reverse it.
    • Romanulus 2y ago
      [dead]
  • ggm 2y ago
    The trees will ride through floods and reduce water flows, improve species diversity for insects, birds, small mammals, improve temperatures and ameliorate winds, provide shelter for farm animals, can enhance grazing. And there's wood to harvest in due course. There's a lot more reasons to plant trees than direct AGW offset. A huge amount of farmland is now surplus to production. Grasses and fields of weeds aren't always ideal. Taking land out of production can also attract offset funding for farmers (-yes, this is a secondary economic outcome and may also incur other costs) People are healthier around trees. People like trees. Even Bill Gates may actually like trees.
  • DocTomoe 2y ago
    He also once said that 640KB should be enough for anyone, so ... let's take his opinion with a grain of salt. Affluence does not equal wisdom.
    • ndjdjddjsjj 2y ago
      He denies it, and even if he said it, it was 1981 and I doubt he meant "forever". > Affluence does not equal wisdom. True Just waiting for someone to factcheck about planting trees: there must be nuance. In australia we burn em to protect people and the environment for example. We have done it for millenia.
• inglor_cz 2y ago
  In many parts of Europe, forested areas have actually grown since the 20th and especially the 19th century. People no longer use wood as a fuel, or in very small amounts compared to the past, and some former pastures have been re-colonized by trees. Czechia is currently 34 per cent forest. Used to be less than 20 per cent in the Theresian cadastre (mid 18-th century).
  • perrygeo 2y ago
    We have to be careful here. While that's good news locally, the news is less promising globally. Deforestation is still rampant in the global south - specifically to make agricultural products for the global north. So Europe and America are still net-deforesters if you take into account their imported products.
  • ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago
    Just open google maps and take a stroll across europe...
  • dachris 2y ago
    Indeed. A few years ago I ran across a comparison of old photographs of rural villages (early 20th century) in central Europe vs their present day appearance, taken from similar points of view. Two things were immediately apparent from the old photographs - less forest - tons of fruit trees Fitting is also this anecdote I heard when visiting a historical mill. They had a huge linden tree in their yard, and they told us that in the olden days this was a symbol of prosperity, because the original owner showed off that they could afford to plant a useless, non-fruit-bearing - a status symbol. Coming full circle - the best thing would be if we could plant tons of trees that also produce food - something like the baobabs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adansonia_digitata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adansonia_digitata . E.g. pigs were fed oak's acorns in fall.
  • magicalhippo 2y ago
    Climate getting milder has also meant the tree line, and thus forest line, has moved up quite a lot[1]. [1]: https://www.forskning.no/norges-forskningsrad-partner-miljoovervakning/skoggrensen-har-kropet-oppover/917465 https://www.forskning.no/norges-forskningsrad-partner-miljoo...
• TheChaplain 2y ago
  That will be interesting experiment. 1) A growing population require food. 2) Their agricultural sector is a major contributor to their economy, not only farmers but everything around it involves a lot of people and businesses. 3) Many countries rely on Danish agricultural exports (it's massive) to ensure people have food.
  • Romanulus 2y ago
    [dead]
  • lokimedes 2y ago
    (Dane here) - this is a major reversal on the food-security policy that drove not just innovation in intensive farming technologies in Denmark in the late nineteenth century, but also the formation of what is now the EU, post WWII, on a european scale. Let's hope butter and bacon from Poland is going to cover our needs.
    • microtonal 2y ago
      Our issues in The Netherlands are probably similar to Denmark's and the biggest issue is not all agriculture. Meat and milk production has an outweighed impact on destroying the environment. You need far more land to grow crops to feed livestock and keeping cows leads to a lot of nitrogen deposition. We can reduce land use and have food security if people were not so intend on eating/drinking animal products every day (and there are perfectly fine vegetarian alternatives).
      • Tade0 2y ago
        I believe the insistence on being a major agricultural producer in the EU despite having some of the largest population densities in the region has a lot to do with it. A huge chunk of that output is purely for export.
      • nradov 2y ago
        That depends on how you define "perfectly fine". All of the vegetarian alternatives have a lower protein quality index, which matters if you're trying to get enough of the essential amino acid s without increasing calorie intake. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1406618 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1406618
• Sabinus 2y ago
  Good luck. In the less cohesive Western countries efforts like this are met with both protest by farmers who view their providing calories as almost a sacred task, and by foreign agitprop that proposes any effort that makes it harder to farm is an attempt at subjugating the people.
  • 123yawaworht456 2y ago
    shitlibs' contempt for farmers of all people is a real mask off moment
    • Sabinus 2y ago
      Farmers can get extremely attached to one piece of land and one farming method and any attempts to shift the incentives in the system and make some types of farming or locations move on is portrayed as a systemic attack on farming and the end of the world. Everyone appreciates the farmers, some farmers just don't seem to appreciate the harms certain types of farming put on everyone else and the ecosystem, and they'll hide behind how essential calories are to protect their interests. You're aware the farming lobby is one of the strongest in many countries right? They're not under-served politically. Farming is one of the most subsidized industries.
      • danlugo92 2y ago
        > powerful Wheres the billionare farmers in the cover of Forbers? Where?
  • danlugo92 2y ago
    Making it harder to grow your own food /is/ subjugating.
  • KSteffensen 2y ago
    Believe me the farmers have been doing their best to buck this.
  • WorkerBee28474 2y ago
• pkulak 2y ago
  No they won't. If they started tomorrow planting 100,000 trees a day, and never took a single day off, they would finish up in 2052. What kind of nursery can even grow 100,000 saplings of conifer a day? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-climate-deniers-playbook/id1694759084 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-climate-deniers-pl...
  • im3w1l 2y ago
    Saplings? Wouldn't it be easier to seed? Or you could plant a few more mature trees sparsely and rely on them to seed?
  • jltsiren 2y ago
    It would take a couple of years at the scale Finnish forest industry is operating. Large parts of Europe are basically forests that have been temporarily cut down. If you let the land be, the forest will often grow back with minimal effort.
  • alberth 2y ago
    Using seedballs, you could conceivably plant 1B trees in just a couple months by dropping the seedballs from airplanes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBbU4MQftc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBbU4MQftc8
    • pkulak 2y ago
      That’s not planting a tree.
• ksec 2y ago
  Before I go into rage mode, I suppose I should ask, why Farmland? Both Denmark and Netherland are big in agriculture export and they are very good at it. I am not against planting trees but it on top of farm land doesn't make any sense to me.
  • jillyboel 2y ago
    Because the EU wants its member countries to care about the climate, even though it's completely overshadowed by the US and China not giving a shit
  • mdorazio 2y ago
    Where else would you like them to plant trees? Tearing up residential areas to convert to forest would be massively expensive and likely unpopular.
    • cpursley 2y ago
      Places that used to be forested and are not productive farmland. There’s lots of places like this, just maybe not in Denmark.
      • Auracle 2y ago
        Not really. Trees plant themselves. If it’s not being actively used for something/mowed it’ll turn back into forest.
        • pintxo 2y ago
          (In the absence of grass and small tree devouring animals)
        • dyauspitr 2y ago
          In the US that would be a bunch of only invasive species for a long time.
          • 2y ago
• aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
• smackay 2y ago
  What kinds of forests? For nature, or for lumber? If the latter, what is quality of the timber produced, or will it spark a new wave of power stations burning wood pellets. Lots of questions, with very little detail available in the article.
• whitehexagon 2y ago
  Southern Europe seems to be converting farmland into solar farms. And new forests seem to be all monoculture Eucalyptus, fast growing for commercial reasons, but sadly empty of wildlife. As much as I'd love for Europe to be reforested, the reduced food security might come back to bite us.
  • skrause 2y ago
    Food security is not an issue at all. For example in Germany around 20% of all farmland is used for "energy plants" (biogas etc.). Even in Germany solar planels have around a 28 times higher efficiency per area than biogas plants, so there is a lot of potential to repurpose farm land without changing food production at all.
    • logicchains 2y ago
      >there is a lot of potential to repurpose farm land without changing food production at all This takes years, which isn't enough in the case of a major food security event, i.e. war.
  • standardUser 2y ago
    Is there a reason you and some many commenters here are concerned about food security? Has this became a nativist rallying cry of some sort? Because by all fact-based accounts there is no problem with food production in Europe.
    • jopsen 2y ago
      And if food security became an issue we could reverse policies. This won't be implemented overnight. We could also just make less bio fuel, or eat more plants less animals, etc. Lots of options, sure we need some food security, but there are limits to how much overproduction we need.
    • nradov 2y ago
      There have been many famines in Europe throughout the past few centuries. Perhaps we're now at the end of history and nothing like that will ever happen again but since countries aren't willing to take that bet.
• ggernov 2y ago
  This is ghoulish - farmland should directly be benefit the endemic population as much as possible! That's what it's there for! I love green tech like solar etc, made my home even more efficient etc but we need fresh food to LIVE!
  • kawsper 2y ago
    Denmark exports a lot of the produced food, and we are one of the most intensely farmed countries in the world, 60.4% of Denmark consists of fields, and 48% of Denmark's land area is used to grow food for animals, animals which are primarily pigs. We also yearly import 1.8 million tons of soy from South America to feed said pigs, because we can't grow enough food for them ourselves. It would be nice to have some nature to walk in, it's something I miss here and something there's a lot of in England, and it's great combined with their public footpath system!
    • doommius 2y ago
      Yup, and to add to this, the large majority of this meat is produced for export, and it's sold super cheap, I personally believe a good way of solving this is only giving EU support to non export farming, eg if you receive EU subsidy the good shouldn't be allowed to be exported, or those taxes would have to be repaid. As currently we're destroying the nature, and waters due to this extremely intensive farming and as others have mentioned Denmark is producing 200-300 % of our domestic need + it requires significant import from south America where it wouldn't surprise me if this import lead to significant deforestation. I know China is also working on increasing their domestic production[1] which is one of the primary markets that Denmark is exporting a lot to , It was 85000 tons last year[2] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/business/china-pork-farms.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/business/china-pork-farms... [2]https://effektivtlandbrug.landbrugnet.dk/artikler/marked/103763/dansk-svineeksport-til-kina-i-brat-fald.aspx https://effektivtlandbrug.landbrugnet.dk/artikler/marked/103...
    • fifticon 2y ago
      this is about farmland that should never have ben cultivated to begin with, it was a temporary emergency practice from WW2 that lobbyists kept alive after the war.
• trebligdivad 2y ago
  Planting orchards would seem an interesting compromise
• stefantalpalaru 2y ago
  [dead]
• JacobJeppesen 2y ago
  I've seen a bit of confusion regarding this. First, it's 10% of Denmark's total land area, which is roughly equivalent to 15% of farmland area. Second, the conversion of farmland area into nature and forests is mainly for improving water quality, as excess nitrogen from agriculture has essentially killed the rivers and coastal waters through oxygen depletion from algae. Regarding global warming and CO2, the area conversion of peatlands will help, but the major change here is the introduction of a carbon tax for the entire agricultural industry. And to end confusion regarding other emissions than CO2, it's actually a CO2-equivalent (CO2e) tax, which includes a range of other gasses. E.g., 1kg of methane is 25kg CO2e. If you'd like to read more, see the two PDF documents below, which are the main official documents. They're in Danish, but upload them to Claude or ChatGPT, and you'll have a much better source of information if you'd like to know more about the specifics and how the actual implementation is planned. [1] https://www.regeringen.dk/media/13261/aftale-om-et-groent-danmark.pdf https://www.regeringen.dk/media/13261/aftale-om-et-groent-da... [2] https://mgtp.dk/media/iinpdy3w/aftale_om_implementering_af_et_groent_danmark_endelig.pdf https://mgtp.dk/media/iinpdy3w/aftale_om_implementering_af_e...
  • SoftTalker 2y ago
    > it's actually a CO2-equivalent (CO2e) tax, which includes a range of other gasses. E.g., 1kg of methane is 25kg CO2e Your pig farmers must be thrilled.
    • dgfitz 2y ago
      I had to look it up, Denmark is allegedly a world leader in pig farming exports. You make a really interesting point that I feel like garners more discourse. https://agricultureandfood.dk/danish-agriculture/agriculture/livestock/pigs/#:~:text=The%20Danish%20pig%20industry%20is,world's%20largest%20pig%20meat%20exporters https://agricultureandfood.dk/danish-agriculture/agriculture....
      • busterarm 2y ago
        Denmark is also THE world leader in pork consumption.
• logtrees 2y ago
  Tree logging is one of my favorite new jobs that will exist in the future.
  • jojobas 2y ago
    There are already tree harvesters that start with a standing tree and end on a ready log with waste mulched. It's only a matter of time it's AI controlled. The future has no jobs.
    • logtrees 2y ago
      Oh yeah that far into the future is singularity so at that point, what we're all doing is just interfacing with the AI. :) But I think that's still a while away, most likely? Or who knows, maybe sooner lol.
      • quinnirill 2y ago
        Seeing a modern foresting machine in action was one of the most daunting experiences of my life. Making an AI drive it is pointless, it’s already at such high productivity that the transportation is a much more meaningful bottleneck now. I literally passed it by while walking the dog on the morning it started, and just 10 minutes later when returning, a neat and large pile of logs stripped of branches was at the roadside and a handful of trees were gone. Two days later when taking the same route, the forest was no more, just a handful of funny trees sitting on barren mudlands surrounded by enormous piles of logs marked and tagged for transport to various destinations.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Incidentally this is one of the approaches described in Kim Robinson's The Ministry for the Future, a novel on climate change (more about the political ramifications of it than the ecological impacts). Interesting read.
  • sentrysapper 2y ago
    IIRC in Ministry for the Future it was 50% of all land was reserved. 10% is a good start though for conservation efforts.
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      It was 50% in places like Canada where they are already close to that figure, plus some parts in the Western US where to set up Migration corridors without mass relocations (mostly nearly abandoned rural hamlets where the young people had moved away anyway).
  • thinkingtoilet 2y ago
    Before anyone jumps into this book I would caution against it. This book had many very cool ideas and moments. The way it played out felt very "real". However, in the end there was very little actual story and was very boring at times. I actively dislike Neal Stephenson but if you want a near-future climate story I would recommend Termination Shock over Ministry For The Future. Just a random internet person's two cents.
    • m463 2y ago
      I had trouble with the Mars series and never got through it. I kind of wonder if it is easier for me to enjoy fiction that requires more "suspension of disbelief" with ftl or time travel, alien races and magic. In comparison when I don't have to suspend any disbelief, we haven't met aliens, other worlds are actually too far to get to, and physics and science is unyielding... it is harder to enjoy myself.
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
• thecleaner 2y ago
  How will it impact food supply ?
• 9front 2y ago
  From https://cphpost.dk/2024-11-22/news/round-up/we-are-in-crisis-says-danish-crown-ceo/ https://cphpost.dk/2024-11-22/news/round-up/we-are-in-crisis... "Danish Crown, one of Denmark’s largest Danish meat producer, is facing significant financial challenges as pig deliveries to its processing plants have dropped in the 2023/24 financial year."
  • titaniumtown 2y ago
    Meat is too cheap and resource intensive. A market correction has been incoming for decades.
  • jamil7 2y ago
    Good.
    • martinsnow 2y ago
      What good is thousands losing their jobs?
      • Cumpiler69 2y ago
        [flagged]
  • mrweasel 2y ago
    On the other hand Tican is doing pretty well and are hiring, while Danish Crown is firing. So at least some of the pigs which would normally go to Danish Crown, is being sent to Tican instead. Tican is also giving farmers a better price per pig. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/seneste/mens-danish-crown-lider-lover-rival-bedre-priser-til-danske-svineboender https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/seneste/mens-danish-crown-lider-lo... Danish Crowns problems aren't entirely due to external factors, part of it is also that Danish Crowns is struggling to run its business properly.
  • jacobgorm 2y ago
    Because the pigs get transported alive to Germany and Poland to get slaughtered, as wages are lower there. Denmark, with a population under six million, still produces 32 million pigs per annum.
• throwuo 2y ago
  America should learn from this
  • titaniumtown 2y ago
    This upcoming administration won't though.
• nicman23 2y ago
  i read 1B and my mind immediately went to llama. i have a problem
• Refusing23 2y ago
  It's not exactly true the government will offer to buy the land from farmers etc. but they can just say 'no'
  • batushka5 2y ago
    And in case they choose "no", that carbon tax for farm animals help to think second time.
    • aziaziazi 2y ago
      In case they farm carbon intensive animals like cows, yes. For the pigs farmers no so much. However those pigs farms totally destroy Denmark fishing areas which traditionally feed the population.
    • flanked-evergl 2y ago
      Yeah, it's much better for farming to be moved to countries with less labour and environmental regulations.
      • danlugo92 2y ago
        They are further off shoring the economy now using the excuse of climate change. As if farmers in Cambodia aren't draining his tractor's oil into the river passing through their land. Bonus points the politicians can then import the food using a shell company in Singapore and steal tax dollars.
      • contagiousflow 2y ago
        That concern has already been discussed https://www.regeringen.dk/media/13261/aftale-om-et-groent-danmark.pdf https://www.regeringen.dk/media/13261/aftale-om-et-groent-da...
        • flanked-evergl 2y ago
          The Uyghurs slaves making your iPhone are grateful that you discussed how much better off the world is. Some serious "but who will pick the cotton vibes".
• iagooar 2y ago
  Let me get this right. Farmers, who are already struggling to meet ends, will have to pay CO2 tax in order to produce FOOD that we all need to SURVIVE and not starve to death? What diabolical plan is that? I am the a huge fan of forests and spend a lot of time in the woods, but man, more trees will not feed us.
  • edhelas 2y ago
    A big percentage of the land usage are to grow crops to feed animals to feed us. If we bring back our meat consumption (especially beef) to something more balanced for our health we can free-up a massive amount of surface. I'm not saying that everyone should be vegetarian or vegan. I'm following the notes of the IPCC and studies that says that we can, and should, reduce some of our meat consumption and get those proteines from all the many other sources (peas, tofu...). Beef is the coal of food. Lets progress to something more efficient, dense and good for our environment and our health.
  • jacobgorm 2y ago
    They are already massively subsidized and this will only increase their subsidies. In Denmark farmers control government similarly to the way big oil abd gunmakers control government in the US.
• space_oddity 2y ago
  The 43 billion kroner earmarked for land acquisition suggests serious commitment, but I wonder how this will impact small farmers and rural communities in the long run...
• fifticon 2y ago
  another point is: since WW2, denmark has one of the highest, if not THE highest, percentages of area under agriculture. During WW2, we temporarily allowed agriculture on very poor farmland. It was meant to cease after the war, but our strong farmer lobbyists kept extending the permission.. So it is not about giving up 'good farm land', it is about stopping abusive agriculture which is only possible with extreme chemistry. Source: am Old dane.
  • danlugo92 2y ago
    Nah, these policies are aimed into increasing food imports (therefore decreasing food security btw), because it's easier for politicians to steal money with off-shore businesses. And the farmers alao get shafted in the process, farmers are always totalitarian's first target. Venezuela, Rwanda, Zimbawe, Cuba.
  • space_oddity 2y ago
    Interesting historical perspective
  • jtdev 2y ago
    [dead]
  • brodouevencode 2y ago
    What percentage of output is accounted for in the lower tier (not good) farmland? If the land is truly suboptimal the additional costs will not scale with the reduction of output.
    • fifticon 2y ago
      I'm sorry I'm not directly answring your question. But part of the answer is, that we are not really intending to fix the CO2 issue. A/the major point with the initiative is that we have effectively killed marine/water life in our local rivers, lakes and near coastal areas, primarily by the leakage of fertilizer from low-yield farming areas (algae remove oxygen from our water, having thus killed off marine life). Because of this, we are no longer discussing the economics of it - once you kill off all marine life, the price is 'always' too high (the way we see it..) So, it might help or not help CO2, but our immediate concern is making it possible to have life in our local water bodies, and more oxygen than 0%. I'm describing it a bit crude, but this should paint the general picture. If we run out of food and starve, we can return to killing allmarine life again :-)
• shafyy 2y ago
  I think a good chart to keep in mind about this discusion is this one: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore Beef emits 49.89 kg CO2 eq. per 100 grams of protein. Tofu 1.98 kg.
• PeterStuer 2y ago
  Be paranoid of how they will define 'forest'. Over here they included e.g. a middle lane divider with a small sapling every 30 meters as counting as a full 'forest'.
• incomingpain 2y ago
  Most of europe agreed to do this. I eagerly hope all of the EU immediately follows through with these commitments. Lucky denmark for being able to just be anti-farmer. France and other countries have to choose a major city to demolish to meet their commitments.
• flanked-evergl 2y ago
  The west is engaging in managed decline and moving production to places with less regulation and much worse environmental and social impacts. Why? What sense does this make? You would rather have some Muslim slave in China make your stuff while poisoning the ocean than make it in Denmark?
  • danlugo92 2y ago
    Corruption and stealing is easier with off-shore business.
  • guiriduro 2y ago
    There are such a thing as tariffs. I think it makes sense that we both improve our local environment and adopt a carrot/stick approach to businesses in other localities that do/don't do the same. Same environmental standards with independent audit should grant (eco) tariff-free access. Likewise, wasteful environmentally destructive exporter = heavy tariff.
    • flanked-evergl 2y ago
      This is not how tariffs are being used and the actual reality is that manufacturing and production is being transferred to places with much worse environmental and labour practices that are also antagonistic to the west. Germany "greeniefied" their economy by just outsourcing energy production to Russia and in the processes ensured 10,000 of Ukranians had to die. This needs to stop. Nobody wins from it, everyone loses.
      • oezi 2y ago
        Come on. It is not Germany's fault that Putin is a madman. Choosing cheap gas over more expensive gas, oil and dirty coal was a win-win. Until Putin was too irrational. Btw.: more than 50.000 Ukrainian soldiers are dead by the latest estimates I have read.
        • flanked-evergl 2y ago
• boredumb 2y ago
  Climate obsessed people are probably in it for the right reasons but are hysterically annoying from any third party perspective. Keep telling people that cow burps are what is driving bad weather and you can keep being baffled that "deniers" hate any of the solutions you come up with there after. People hate pollution across the board, people hate theoretical models of climate effects based on research divorced from reality that predict weather in 30 years to be a doomsday scenario because of something so obviously mundane while ignoring outsourcing manufacturing to china and india to bus, boat and flight. At this rate we may one day in our lifetime be able to have all the pigs and cattle raised in china and fly them on business class to europe in order to fight the weather via carbon credits.
• option 2y ago
  I am amazed by the idea (also popular among many in California) that one can “outsource” climate change to poor, developing countries by not producing for yourself
  • tayistay 2y ago
    Google says: “California is the largest agricultural exporter in the United States”
    • option 2y ago
      California imports about 30% of its energy from other states. [1] More importantly, most of the gas Californias consume is imported as well. I guess its OK to drill and build coal electric plants as well as it is elsewhere. /s [1] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-much-energy-california-imp-9SUY7ErwSzG1Co_Nz2wXaQ https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-much-energy-california-...
• fuzztester 2y ago
  Sort of related: IIRC, I had read somewhere a while ago that Denmark was going to convert to fully organic farming. So, just now, I googled for a relevant phrase and found this as one of the results: https://ecobnb.com/blog/2017/07/denmark-organic/ https://ecobnb.com/blog/2017/07/denmark-organic/ This was the search I used: https://www.google.com/search?q=Denmark+doing+fully+organic+farming https://www.google.com/search?q=Denmark+doing+fully+organic+...