3 ms·

How will converting farmland to forests help with climate change? It seems like it would have no particular impact or make the situation worse w.r.t. climate ch

by roenxi 2y ago

How will converting farmland to forests help with climate change? It seems like it would have no particular impact or make the situation worse w.r.t. climate change for Denmark. If it is a good idea I'd imagine it would also be a good idea if the climate was not changing. Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions at all. In fact nobody does except ironically the Chinese and their industrial-growth-at-any-cost coal based approach from the 90s and 00s.

geysersam 2y ago
> how will converting farmland to forest Farming is very carbon emission intensive if the farmland is reclaimed wetland. Converting the farmland to forest and stopping draining (making it more wet again) can definitely reduce carbon emissions significantly. > Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions This is such a tiresome and logically hollow argument. Denmark has the ability to reduce a fraction of the worlds emissions. The size of the fraction is proportional to the size of their emissions. Every country has a responsibility to reduce it's per capita emissions to sustainable levels. China has lower per capita emissions than most richer countries.
- addcommitpush 2y ago
  Note that China has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. Let’s split China population in k Denmark-sized groups, plus one smaller-than-Denmark reminder. None of the k groups has any ability to impact global CO2 emissions (same as Denmark). We can reasonably assume that a smaller group has even less ability to impact global CO2 emissions than a bigger group. Hence the smaller-than-Denmark reminder has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. Thus China is made of groups that have no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. And therefore China as a whole has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions. (Otherwise at least one group within China would have to impact global emissions and we just saw that it isn’t possible). This is known as the CO2 impossibility theorem, loosely based on Arrow’s concept of “(in)decisive” set.
  - oezi 2y ago
    Certainly you are just demonstrating the opposite. Everyone has the ability to impact global CO2 emmissions. We certainly need international coordination or actors with a minimal set of morals to achieve it.
    - addcommitpush 2y ago
      > Everyone has the ability to impact global CO2 emmissions. I'm afraid most people are smaller-than-Denmark groups, and thus unable whatsoever to impact global emissions. It's just math.
      - geysersam 2y ago
        1e-10 is reeeallly close to zero, therefore 1e10 * 1e-10 is also close to zero. That's what your math sounds like to me.
        addcommitpush 2y ago
        Isn't it true? f = lambda x: (1/x) * x f(1e309) yields NaN, not 1. (So I guess Denmark is at least 1e309-sized in some metric).
        itishappy 2y ago
        No.
        oezi 2y ago
        His math is x ~ 0, hence x / 10 = 0, hence x = NaN. The starting point is just wrong that Denmark can't play a role when it comes to climate change. Denmark can make a change. It is like saying that when voting that no individual vote or county matters, when the opposite is true: every vote matters in the same way. Every kg CO2 saved is good... (obviously we should strive for the most economic way to save CO2).
    - fifticon 2y ago
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Land use is one of the big topics covered by the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
- roenxi 2y ago
  That isn't saying anything. Land use is a big topic covered by everyone.

by roenxi 2y ago

geysersam 2y ago

> how will converting farmland to forest Farming is very carbon emission intensive if the farmland is reclaimed wetland. Converting the farmland to forest and stopping draining (making it more wet again) can definitely reduce carbon emissions significantly. > Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions This is such a tiresome and logically hollow argument. Denmark has the ability to reduce a fraction of the worlds emissions. The size of the fraction is proportional to the size of their emissions. Every country has a responsibility to reduce it's per capita emissions to sustainable levels. China has lower per capita emissions than most richer countries.

addcommitpush 2y ago
Note that China has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. Let’s split China population in k Denmark-sized groups, plus one smaller-than-Denmark reminder. None of the k groups has any ability to impact global CO2 emissions (same as Denmark). We can reasonably assume that a smaller group has even less ability to impact global CO2 emissions than a bigger group. Hence the smaller-than-Denmark reminder has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. Thus China is made of groups that have no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. And therefore China as a whole has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions. (Otherwise at least one group within China would have to impact global emissions and we just saw that it isn’t possible). This is known as the CO2 impossibility theorem, loosely based on Arrow’s concept of “(in)decisive” set.
- oezi 2y ago
  Certainly you are just demonstrating the opposite. Everyone has the ability to impact global CO2 emmissions. We certainly need international coordination or actors with a minimal set of morals to achieve it.
  - addcommitpush 2y ago
    > Everyone has the ability to impact global CO2 emmissions. I'm afraid most people are smaller-than-Denmark groups, and thus unable whatsoever to impact global emissions. It's just math.
    - geysersam 2y ago
      1e-10 is reeeallly close to zero, therefore 1e10 * 1e-10 is also close to zero. That's what your math sounds like to me.
      - addcommitpush 2y ago
        Isn't it true? f = lambda x: (1/x) * x f(1e309) yields NaN, not 1. (So I guess Denmark is at least 1e309-sized in some metric).
        itishappy 2y ago
        No.
      - oezi 2y ago
        His math is x ~ 0, hence x / 10 = 0, hence x = NaN. The starting point is just wrong that Denmark can't play a role when it comes to climate change. Denmark can make a change. It is like saying that when voting that no individual vote or county matters, when the opposite is true: every vote matters in the same way. Every kg CO2 saved is good... (obviously we should strive for the most economic way to save CO2).
  - fifticon 2y ago

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Land use is one of the big topics covered by the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

roenxi 2y ago
That isn't saying anything. Land use is a big topic covered by everyone.