Hacker News Reader

Comment by ColdStream | Hacker News Reader

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Probably a dozen reasons why we cannot that I am unaware of, but from my arm chair it looks good.

The water was likely redirected for agricultural purposes and the farmers won't/can't surrender it on top of drought, if it's anything like the US. Would be real cool if we could make investments like this though.

This is another point that is overlooked. If you transform a landscape, moving the water through quickly or whatever, preventing the natural action (eg deeply drenching the ground) perhaps you create a high risk of a fire where the ground gets very hot, where that wasn't a possibility before.

In this case no, all the water is drained. I don't think meaningful amounts are retained for agriculture.

The pine forest is the agriculture.

Well... Turns out that it went up in flames...

Looking at what this group is slowly doing all over the world I don't think it is impossible tough but possible. https://www.youtube.com/@MossyEarth

Let it burn then?

People live there. So do animals and insects. Never mind the air pollution.

And later, different animals and insects will live there.

Depends on the time scale, I guess? We are living in a mass extinction that is orders of magnitudes faster than the one of the dinosaurs. So the norm, right now, is that later there will be fewer animals and insects.

In Europe, we've lost 80% of insects in the last 20 years, something like that? That was completely unrelated to climate change. I guess climate change is just coming to help with the remaining 20%.

Oh ok this is fine then.

Don't worry about the end of the world, I heard the cockroaches will survive the apocalypse.

Might well be. You understand that forest fires are actually natural, and this forest actually isn't, and so the suggestion is at least not automatically invalid.

Jail the arsonists is much better

Reply on news.ycombinator.com