7 ms·

Read the article. This isn't a climate solution, it's a solution to mitigate the effects of climate change on people, making them even more likely to go on with

Read the article. This isn't a climate solution, it's a solution to mitigate the effects of climate change on people, making them even more likely to go on with their wasteful ways. Don't get me wrong: planting trees is a good thing. But the word "solution" implies a reduced rate of increase of CO2 over time, which this will not do. We have to use far less energy and far less fossil fuels to actually do that, and shift away from consumeristic innovation, which no one will do. Instead, they'll just plant trees to keep them cooler.

roland35 1y ago
[flagged]
sandspar 1y ago
Lol. If Las Vegas city planners can't single handedly solve climate change then they shouldn't beautify their tourist district. You seem to dislike the article's framing, which is fine, but then you start on a crusade. It's ok to plant trees so that hot people will feel slightly less hot. It doesn't need to fix every problem, just the small problem that there's too little shade in their tourist district. The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs. It's just so annoying to see this smugness from online commenters. "Their solution isn't Pure enough [therefore I'm smarter/purer than them]." Maybe the Las Vegas city planners have good reasons for doing what they did. I mean that's possible right? Could it even be possible that there's more to this story than you understand?
- danans 1y ago
  Unless I missed it, the article doesn't say anything about a tourist district. If anything, it's focused on the neighborhoods that are not in the tourist district. That said, we need to start qualifying the phrases we use to describe climate change issues. This one (if it works) is a "climate change adaptation solution".
- turnsout 1y ago
  You’re right—based on everything I’ve heard about the development of Las Vegas by mobsters in the 1950s, it sounds like they started with a very intentional multi-decade plan focused on ecological impact and sustainability.
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  > The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs. Wrong. The unstated premise of my post is that I'm sick of articles pointing out "solutions" to the climate change problem which contributes to people believing that recycling and planting trees in their yard of their big house will help. This has to do with the person who wrote the title, not the city planners. The city planners didn't claim it was a solution. I'm not commenting on the city planners at all –– and I understand the situation perfectly.
  - tshaddox 1y ago
    This framing of climate change (as a problem which can meaningfully be addressed by private individuals changing their habits) must be loved by people who stand to benefit from climate change.
    - ako 1y ago
      One night in a garage with a car with a running engine and you’re dead. Is it really that hard to imagine what happens if you have millions and millions of humans, cars, factories and other poluting items for many years? The atmosphere is not that big, that’s actually one of the main observations that astronauts have who have been to space. And if it is humans that have changed the climate by their behavior, it is also in our power to change it differently.
      - EdwardDiego 1y ago
        Sure, but the GP is referring to the tactic wherein orgs making money hand over fist from polluting substances or industries like to frame it as an individual problem to solve, not a massively systemic problem that'll require conscious collective action to resolve. E.g., BP used to advertise in my country with ways you could reduce your carbon footprint. You know, have shorter showers, recycle, etc. BP is a company profiting massively from fossil fuels,and for funsies, on whose behalf the British government asked the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran, and install the exiled Shah, who was much more business friendly. So they pay clever people to try to refrain climate change as "if only you did some things, it'd go away, it's your fault, all of you." Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain.
- kimixa 1y ago
  Not just beautification. If people walked more because the route was actually pleasant and cooler with shade, that's less automobile miles, perhaps lower AC costs, and likely less healthcare costs in the long term. So even a relatively small number of trees in the context of "climate change" could have an oversized indirect impact.
brandensilva 1y ago
60k trees in 25 years also seems woefully insufficient.
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  A good start but there needs to be more...a lot more.
  - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
    Neither labor nor capital are free. If you want to donate yours, I'm sure they could plant a few extra trees. But those resources need to come from somewhere, and they aren't unlimited.
    - selcuka 1y ago
      > Neither labor nor capital are free. They are both free when you are the one who prints the money. Governments can definitely afford to plant trees, even though I agree that it won't solve the problem.
      - nradov 1y ago
        Printing money (monetary inflation) is essentially just a stealth tax on everyone who holds or earns dollars. I'm not opposed to increased government spending on mitigating climate change but let's be honest about it and budget for it properly rather than wrecking our currency.
        selcuka 1y ago
        > Printing money (monetary inflation) is essentially just a stealth tax on everyone who holds or earns dollars. Of course it is. My point is someone doesn't need to donate labour or capital to make this happen. Governments, not people, should be the ones who are doing it.
        pjerem 1y ago
petesergeant 1y ago
> making them even more likely to go on with their wasteful ways It's going to make them use less aircon, which seems like a good start
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  True. Not a bad start indeed.
- disparate_dan 1y ago
  But more water, in a desert region?
  - petesergeant 1y ago
    For sure a concern. Water-stress on one hand vs pretty dirty electricity sources (NV is like 2/3rds fossil fuel iirc) on the other. The overall calculation would be pretty complicated (and like how water-hungry are these trees?) but presumably someone's done it...
  - Syntaf 1y ago
    For one, the trees used here are mostly the desert variety that can withstand the hash conditions of our summers and infrequent waterings [1] -- they're actually quite beautiful too! Secondly, LV is one of the most water efficient cities in the world. We recycle nearly all of our indoor water back into Lake Mead, and despite the city growing by 800K over the last 20 years we've reduced per-capita water consumption by 55% [2] Our water crisis is a symptom of the water rights debate between the four states, not our over-consumption of water. You could actually eliminate the state of Nevada from the water crisis debate over the Colorado river and we wouldn't even make a _dent_ in the impact, it's the irrigated deserts of AZ and water intensive farming in CA that's the unsustainable piece (coming from a proud local who grew up in LV). [1] https://knpr.org/norms-favorite-desert-trees https://knpr.org/norms-favorite-desert-trees [2] https://www.lvvwd.com/conservation/measures/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.lvvwd.com/conservation/measures/index.html?utm_s...
  - mcntsh 1y ago
aboardRat4 1y ago
There is nothing bad in CO₂ . When all of the now buried alive CO₂ was in the atmosphere, the planet was a tropical paradise and could support tall heavy cold-blooded reptiles. We need to burn more coal and return more land nowadays covered by permafrost into the agricultural circulation.
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  Whoa are you serious? During past fluctuations of CO2, the world had millions of years to adapt. Though, I think tall, cold-blooded reptiles would be preferable to the current state...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - aboardRat4 1y ago
    >During past fluctuations of CO2, the world had millions of years to adapt We won't need to explicitly "adapt". The excess released carbon dioxide is going to make Sahara and Gobi greener, because it will be easier for the plants to grow with a higher concentration of CO2 in the air. In other words, it's not going to stay in the atmosphere for a long time, it's going to become embodied in the trees and other plants. Unless we diligently self-destruct by cutting literally all the trees living on the planet. (Possible, but unlikely.) But even if we just keep doing what we are doing now at the same pace, it's going to be more or less enough. The excessive CO2 is _already_ making the planet greener. (I guess it's a good idea to plant more trees anyway.)
- toephu2 1y ago
  Are you talking about dinosaurs? The scientific consensus is that most dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
  - aboardRat4 1y ago
    Really? I need to have a look. They were called reptiles in my textbook.
variadix 1y ago
Degrowth isn’t a realistic nor acceptable solution to climate change. People aren’t going to accept a lower standard of living because scientists and activists told them they should. The only solution is technological progress.
- chneu 1y ago
  Don't worry, unlivable conditions will force lower standards of living on everyone except the elite. It's already happening for many people today who had no choice in the matter while people in developed countries have an endless stream of excuses. Degrowth is inevitable. The only difference is when it happens, which is dictated by our choices. We're speed running it and using every excuse we can come up with.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    > Don't worry, unlivable conditions will force lower standards of living on everyone except the elite. Thank you, I didn't know that was the real goal of the climate movement. Just one question: How do you intend to force unlivable conditions, which in turn will force lower standards of living? I mean, which is the cause and which the effect if they are at all different? Also, you have to advertise your goals more aggressively, don't be timid. I imagine the billboards: "Degrowth is inevitable" "Fight for unlivable conditions and low standards of living for everyone except the elite".
    - selbyk 1y ago
      I think it's great when people argue in bad faith and waste everyone's time.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      60 percent of Americans can’t afford a basic quality of life. People are having less kids because of their economics globally. The existing system is the forcing function. https://www.unfpa.org/news/fertility-fallacy-five-things-you-didn%E2%80%99t-know-about-global-fertility-rates https://www.unfpa.org/news/fertility-fallacy-five-things-you... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynq459wxgo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynq459wxgo This is before climate impact accelerates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/wef24-climate-crisis-health/ https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/wef24-climate-crisis-h... Living standards won’t increase because demographic dividends from growing working age populations is over, and total fertility rates are rapidly declining globally. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/dependency-and-depopulation-confronting-the-consequences-of-a-new-demographic-reality https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/dependency-and-dep... https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/spring/summer-2018/demographics-their-implications-economy-policy https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/spring/summer-2018/demogra...

roland35 1y ago

[flagged]

sandspar 1y ago

Lol. If Las Vegas city planners can't single handedly solve climate change then they shouldn't beautify their tourist district. You seem to dislike the article's framing, which is fine, but then you start on a crusade. It's ok to plant trees so that hot people will feel slightly less hot. It doesn't need to fix every problem, just the small problem that there's too little shade in their tourist district. The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs. It's just so annoying to see this smugness from online commenters. "Their solution isn't Pure enough [therefore I'm smarter/purer than them]." Maybe the Las Vegas city planners have good reasons for doing what they did. I mean that's possible right? Could it even be possible that there's more to this story than you understand?

danans 1y ago
Unless I missed it, the article doesn't say anything about a tourist district. If anything, it's focused on the neighborhoods that are not in the tourist district. That said, we need to start qualifying the phrases we use to describe climate change issues. This one (if it works) is a "climate change adaptation solution".
turnsout 1y ago
You’re right—based on everything I’ve heard about the development of Las Vegas by mobsters in the 1950s, it sounds like they started with a very intentional multi-decade plan focused on ecological impact and sustainability.
vouaobrasil 1y ago
> The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs. Wrong. The unstated premise of my post is that I'm sick of articles pointing out "solutions" to the climate change problem which contributes to people believing that recycling and planting trees in their yard of their big house will help. This has to do with the person who wrote the title, not the city planners. The city planners didn't claim it was a solution. I'm not commenting on the city planners at all –– and I understand the situation perfectly.
- tshaddox 1y ago
  This framing of climate change (as a problem which can meaningfully be addressed by private individuals changing their habits) must be loved by people who stand to benefit from climate change.
  - ako 1y ago
    One night in a garage with a car with a running engine and you’re dead. Is it really that hard to imagine what happens if you have millions and millions of humans, cars, factories and other poluting items for many years? The atmosphere is not that big, that’s actually one of the main observations that astronauts have who have been to space. And if it is humans that have changed the climate by their behavior, it is also in our power to change it differently.
    - EdwardDiego 1y ago
      Sure, but the GP is referring to the tactic wherein orgs making money hand over fist from polluting substances or industries like to frame it as an individual problem to solve, not a massively systemic problem that'll require conscious collective action to resolve. E.g., BP used to advertise in my country with ways you could reduce your carbon footprint. You know, have shorter showers, recycle, etc. BP is a company profiting massively from fossil fuels,and for funsies, on whose behalf the British government asked the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran, and install the exiled Shah, who was much more business friendly. So they pay clever people to try to refrain climate change as "if only you did some things, it'd go away, it's your fault, all of you." Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain.
kimixa 1y ago
Not just beautification. If people walked more because the route was actually pleasant and cooler with shade, that's less automobile miles, perhaps lower AC costs, and likely less healthcare costs in the long term. So even a relatively small number of trees in the context of "climate change" could have an oversized indirect impact.

brandensilva 1y ago

60k trees in 25 years also seems woefully insufficient.

vouaobrasil 1y ago
A good start but there needs to be more...a lot more.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
  Neither labor nor capital are free. If you want to donate yours, I'm sure they could plant a few extra trees. But those resources need to come from somewhere, and they aren't unlimited.
  - selcuka 1y ago
    > Neither labor nor capital are free. They are both free when you are the one who prints the money. Governments can definitely afford to plant trees, even though I agree that it won't solve the problem.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Printing money (monetary inflation) is essentially just a stealth tax on everyone who holds or earns dollars. I'm not opposed to increased government spending on mitigating climate change but let's be honest about it and budget for it properly rather than wrecking our currency.
      - selcuka 1y ago
        > Printing money (monetary inflation) is essentially just a stealth tax on everyone who holds or earns dollars. Of course it is. My point is someone doesn't need to donate labour or capital to make this happen. Governments, not people, should be the ones who are doing it.
      - pjerem 1y ago

petesergeant 1y ago

> making them even more likely to go on with their wasteful ways It's going to make them use less aircon, which seems like a good start

vouaobrasil 1y ago
True. Not a bad start indeed.
disparate_dan 1y ago
But more water, in a desert region?
- petesergeant 1y ago
  For sure a concern. Water-stress on one hand vs pretty dirty electricity sources (NV is like 2/3rds fossil fuel iirc) on the other. The overall calculation would be pretty complicated (and like how water-hungry are these trees?) but presumably someone's done it...
- Syntaf 1y ago
  For one, the trees used here are mostly the desert variety that can withstand the hash conditions of our summers and infrequent waterings [1] -- they're actually quite beautiful too! Secondly, LV is one of the most water efficient cities in the world. We recycle nearly all of our indoor water back into Lake Mead, and despite the city growing by 800K over the last 20 years we've reduced per-capita water consumption by 55% [2] Our water crisis is a symptom of the water rights debate between the four states, not our over-consumption of water. You could actually eliminate the state of Nevada from the water crisis debate over the Colorado river and we wouldn't even make a _dent_ in the impact, it's the irrigated deserts of AZ and water intensive farming in CA that's the unsustainable piece (coming from a proud local who grew up in LV). [1] https://knpr.org/norms-favorite-desert-trees https://knpr.org/norms-favorite-desert-trees [2] https://www.lvvwd.com/conservation/measures/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.lvvwd.com/conservation/measures/index.html?utm_s...
- mcntsh 1y ago

aboardRat4 1y ago

There is nothing bad in CO₂ . When all of the now buried alive CO₂ was in the atmosphere, the planet was a tropical paradise and could support tall heavy cold-blooded reptiles. We need to burn more coal and return more land nowadays covered by permafrost into the agricultural circulation.

vouaobrasil 1y ago
Whoa are you serious? During past fluctuations of CO2, the world had millions of years to adapt. Though, I think tall, cold-blooded reptiles would be preferable to the current state...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- aboardRat4 1y ago
  >During past fluctuations of CO2, the world had millions of years to adapt We won't need to explicitly "adapt". The excess released carbon dioxide is going to make Sahara and Gobi greener, because it will be easier for the plants to grow with a higher concentration of CO2 in the air. In other words, it's not going to stay in the atmosphere for a long time, it's going to become embodied in the trees and other plants. Unless we diligently self-destruct by cutting literally all the trees living on the planet. (Possible, but unlikely.) But even if we just keep doing what we are doing now at the same pace, it's going to be more or less enough. The excessive CO2 is _already_ making the planet greener. (I guess it's a good idea to plant more trees anyway.)
toephu2 1y ago
Are you talking about dinosaurs? The scientific consensus is that most dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
- aboardRat4 1y ago
  Really? I need to have a look. They were called reptiles in my textbook.

variadix 1y ago

Degrowth isn’t a realistic nor acceptable solution to climate change. People aren’t going to accept a lower standard of living because scientists and activists told them they should. The only solution is technological progress.

chneu 1y ago
Don't worry, unlivable conditions will force lower standards of living on everyone except the elite. It's already happening for many people today who had no choice in the matter while people in developed countries have an endless stream of excuses. Degrowth is inevitable. The only difference is when it happens, which is dictated by our choices. We're speed running it and using every excuse we can come up with.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > Don't worry, unlivable conditions will force lower standards of living on everyone except the elite. Thank you, I didn't know that was the real goal of the climate movement. Just one question: How do you intend to force unlivable conditions, which in turn will force lower standards of living? I mean, which is the cause and which the effect if they are at all different? Also, you have to advertise your goals more aggressively, don't be timid. I imagine the billboards: "Degrowth is inevitable" "Fight for unlivable conditions and low standards of living for everyone except the elite".
  - selbyk 1y ago
    I think it's great when people argue in bad faith and waste everyone's time.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    60 percent of Americans can’t afford a basic quality of life. People are having less kids because of their economics globally. The existing system is the forcing function. https://www.unfpa.org/news/fertility-fallacy-five-things-you-didn%E2%80%99t-know-about-global-fertility-rates https://www.unfpa.org/news/fertility-fallacy-five-things-you... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynq459wxgo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynq459wxgo This is before climate impact accelerates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/wef24-climate-crisis-health/ https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/wef24-climate-crisis-h... Living standards won’t increase because demographic dividends from growing working age populations is over, and total fertility rates are rapidly declining globally. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/dependency-and-depopulation-confronting-the-consequences-of-a-new-demographic-reality https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/dependency-and-dep... https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/spring/summer-2018/demographics-their-implications-economy-policy https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/spring/summer-2018/demogra...