Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by willcipriano | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

willcipriano

Read the first one. The second has a lot of spin that is obvious once you have the context from the first article.

The entire planet is greener. Everywhere. The planting did little.

> Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect

One of those Inconvenient Truths.

View on HN

>One of those Inconvenient Truths.

But it's not at all an """Incovenient""" truth. The fact that plants use CO2 to grow, and that more CO2 can result in more ruffage growing is uncontroversial.

It also does nothing to offset the actual problems with increasing CO2 levels!

Exactly, the US and Europe are free to reforest but choose not to for some unexplained reason.

Brazilian beef is frankly way less deforested than anything from the U.S. or Europe.

The three most forested countries in the world are Russia, Canada and Brazil in that order.

In all honesty I’m perfectly fine with the bans / boycotts it keeps farmers here poor and beef cheap.

North America (and the US) is greener than 20 years ago.

Europe is greener than 20 years ago.

Asia is greener than 20 years ago.

Africa is greener than 20 years ago.

The entire planet is greener than 20 years ago.

It has nothing to do with people planting trees and everything to do with Co2 being what plants eat.

Fully agree. The world was greenest during the Carboniferous when avg temps were 0 above modern levels and CO2 was 800ppm.

That's my understanding as well: more carbon dioxide -> more green.

I agree with you on reforestation. As a matter of fact, Northern Europe was almost completely deforested only 100 years ago, and is now one of the greenest parts of the planet. Looking at old photographs from that time, you won't recognise places. It is disgusting listening to these Germans and French sitting on their high horses and trying to impose their will onto a country on the other side of the world, while not planting any trees in their own deforested nations.

In Italy the amount of forest increased by about 75% in the past 80 years.

This is mostly due to the fact after WW2 lot of people stopped farming in the hills and mountains, and moved to urban areas. There are plenty of ghost towns in the Italian mountains.

[1] (link in Italian) https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/in-italia-mai-cosi-tante-for...

Russia is barely in the top 50 if you are talking as a percentage of land mass that is forest. (Russia 49, Canada 73, and Brazil 27... US is 89)

Finland, Sweden and Japan are the top 3 fully industiralized nations for forested land as a percentage of land mass.

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/AG.LND.FRST.ZS/r...

Your source gives quite different numbers:

  Russia 49.78%
  Canada 38.70%
  Brazil 59.42%
  US     33.87%

I listed rankings, not percentage

If the Amazon was in the US or Europe, there'd be nothing left of it today.

Not sure what leads to this believe, we have lots of untouched and well managed forests in the US. Sure we logged most of the eastern states but we also learned their importance before we completely destroyed them, hence wilderness and national park areas that can’t be logged.

Same in many countries in Europe. Also see France's South American forests in French Guyana. Much better managed than Brazil's. Incomparable, actually.

Look up what the French did in Haiti and how it's like there nowadays. Hint: the forests gone is the "minor" issue left by the French.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com