To prevent possibly catastrophic climate change we can't just bring C02 emissions to zero - we have to go negative, sucking the CO2 that's already there. The best tech is a billion years old: trees. Massive Reforestation could Slow Global Warming.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-forest-restoration-could-greatly-slow-global-warming/ …
-
Fully admitting that this is far afield of any expertise I have, some of the assumptions here seem dubious — for example, would foresting every surface of the planet that could possibly support it really "restore biodiversity"? Is all life really amenable to perfect shade cover?
(My understanding is that the most biodiverse regions have heavy tree cover. But ought we replace all other habitats & expect global biodiversity to increase? If Bob is the most productive employee at company X, it doesn't follow that all staff should be replaced by Bob clones.)
-
-
But in the last 1000 years or so we deforestated a large part of the world. So we should try to revert that (at least in part).
-
Whole Germany for instance used to be a forest. Now it’s mostly agriculture here.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
While many places can and should be reforested, much of the world - central Oregon or much of California - would be at a significant increased risk for forest fires. These places are suitable for grasslands which are incredible carbon sponges. Forests, grasslands, and soil
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.