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/ …
-
I'm not against reforestation, it just seems to me that the precautionary principle didn't get much play here when it comes to impact discussion. We've certainly bungled reforestation before: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/how-to-regrow-forest-right-way-minimize-fire-water-use/ …
I think it's important to remember that even when reforestation looks like an entirely natural return to a prior regional state, humans are capable of getting it wrong. And when we're talking about actually repurposing entire habitats, considerably *more* caution is called for
-
-
Very interesting take. Personally I wouldn't say more caution. Definitely some caution. And the entire premise of reforestation to me implies that the area be reverted as much as is possible to pre deforestation conditions. However humans are not brilliant at playing God.
-
The arguments made in this piece are about maximizing forestation to cover *all* land not in use by humans or obviously unsuitable (e.g. deserts). Unfortunately, forests are complicated even where they arise naturally, restoring them properly is hard, and there are serious risks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.