Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon1253 | Hacker News Reader

Yes trees are a perfect solution. They've optimized this process through millions of years of evolution. However, we're still removing more trees than adding them per year. Quite impressively so, even. It takes time for forests to grow. A lot of its carbon sink properties are because of soil succession, which takes decades to mature.

View on HN

Who is "we"?

I think the US is about equalized because industries like the the US paper industry plant about as many trees as we cut.

If "we" is the world the lots of poor countries are unsustainably slash and burning. Starving people want to not die today so they make places to plant crops.

If we is people afraid of the expanding growth of the Sahara southward then things like the great green wall are interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall

But that's the thing right, "we" is the human population. If the US logging industry plants as much trees as it removes, then it doesn't really really matter if the global rain forests are being slashed and burned for agricultural reasons. Not to mention the massive amounts of forest fires we can expect due to increased heat and drought, which we have absolutely no idea how to deal with. It truly is a global problem. Great Green Wall is definitely a good thing! Throw in some heliostat solar (molten salt) powered desalination, and massive amounts of desert could be "greened" (good for people, economy and climate!)

As much as media and schools indoctrinate the idea that papers waste most trees, it's not true.

The biggest percentage of Amazon rainforest deforestation is for the livestock industry. The beef that USA and Europe gladly import, and the soybean that Brazil gladly exports.

Palm oil in Asia also.

Consumers just have to stop voting with their money for oblivious and blind short-sighted products. Politiciancs obviously will never tax beef or Lays chips.

This is why the US should not just be "about equal". We can afford to improve the situation, not just maintain the status quo. Instead, we often find ourselves sitting in judgement of developing countries doing the same things we did to develop.

Do you think American voters are going to be happy about sacrificing their own well-being explicitly so that other people can pollute/deforest more? Do you think that's a platform that will win elections?

I think we should use our wealth and clout to both do better than the bare minimum in our own country and pressure other countries to do at least the bare minimum. I think our leaders should figure out how to do that while still winning elections. That does sound hard, but if the job description were only to pander, anybody could do it.

> I think our leaders should figure out how to do that while still winning elections.

Do you want a pony, too?

Look, we're not talking about straight up charity. You can talk people into charity; despite the standard narrative, the United States is quite generous in that regard. What you're asking for is for us to reduce our standard of living explicitly so other people can pollute. That's going to be a hard sell.

I agree. No progress has ever been made by giving up something lots of people want. Look at smoking, people know it will kill them, banned in most outdoor areas and that it is expensive/super taxed. The taxes doubled the price and that didn't reduce the smoking as much ecigs, a away for people to get what they with all of the benefits and fewer downsides.

Every gain we make needs to unambiguously be a gain otherwise some will choose to ignore the self restriction for their own personal gain and with CO2 we all lose when that happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com