• BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d be more interested in if they’re doing proper rewilding and reforesting, or if this is more of the same monoculture tree farm crap we’ve seen for 20 years.

    Edit: Looks like that’s exactly what this article is about. They’re trying to do proper reforesting, but they’re finding they can only get a few species, mainly timber woods. Sounds about right.

    • Great point, if it’s not native to the area it doesn’t make much sense. Native species are built to handle the specific year round conditions. Nonnative species typically struggle at certain times of the year. Plus, they can take over entirely too. When sourcing indigenous seed, the most common issue is the amount. Ideally a couple years heads up could be given to help offset the problem.

    • Some trees actually require fire to reproduce. So stopping fires isn’t too logical, but controlled burns similar to the Native American’s approach is the way to do it. This allows the circle of life to continue without a colossal impact on the surrounding areas.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        The kinds of fires we’re seeing aren’t healthy, they obliterate all life and leave nothing behind.

        Planting trees won’t fix that.

        • Doing controlled burns will prevent the fires getting to this extent. Nonetheless, it’s not a singular focus here, tree’s uptake CO2 and you know one big factor to these outlandish fires? The increasingly hot temperatures as a result of CO2 levels.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Trees alone are not anywhere near enough to lower CO2 levels lol

            Until emissions peak it is only going to get worse. Planting trees is a joke solution made up by unserious people who just want to appear like they’re doing something and don’t want to actually solve the problem.

            • Ahh, right… Perfection only, progress is ridiculous. Might as well just give the money to the US military then, which is far and away the biggest single contributor to the climate crisis.

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                lol do you think this is progressing anywhere? Really? Do you think this is going to lead to greater action on the part of the US government?

                Don’t be ridiculous. The US government is an enemy of the planet, this tree planting bullshit is meant to placate you.

            • CadeJohnson@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You know, just wearing a seatbelt is not enough to keep you from being killed in a car wreck, so might as well not wear it, eh?

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is more like looping the seatbelt over your shoulder to fool cops into thinking you’re clicked in 😏

        • Ducks@ducks.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are you suggesting that less trees is better for the environment? Because that’s what it looks like you’re saying

        • deur@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Could you provide some articles or similar for those interested in learning about the huge impact you’re describing?

            • Anticorp
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not just climate change, it’s a lack of forest management, combined with fire prevention against smaller fires. This allows for dangerous underbrush and small trees to grow uncontrolled. Then when a forest fire hits, it has way more fuel than it should and completely obliterates everything, instead of just burning out the underbrush and providing the conditions needed for pine cones to open and spread their seeds.

                • Addv4@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Or maybe planting a bunch of trees and properly managing them might. We know there is definitely a huge need for them (at the very least as a carbon sink and cooling the surroundings), and that there will be issues keeping them from from having fires in future, but the benefits to planting a billion (even if they very clearly are planting that many as a bit of an attention getter) are numerous and can outweight the risk.

                • CadeJohnson@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are right about one thing, the US does not yet have a decarbonization strategy - it is like a motor that is not quite starting; banging on a cylinder here or there but not yet running (may this analogy be completely indecipherable in another generation). But maybe things are starting to change a little?