Planting trees as solution to climate crisis

[dianaiad]

You judged me on my 5 polyester T-shirts being bad for the environment. You COULD stop judging others. That is the point you missed. He who does not burden environment can judge me and others however much he likes. Probably he won't.

You choose to wear polyester, and are proud of it, in spite of the FACT that you can make a different choice.

I can't make a different choice.

Cars was an example (I quoted it even). I am 100% sure that you own and use things in your life that are a burden to the environment. I do not use soap and tooth paste, do you?

Home made soap...and no, I don't use toothpaste. I have dentures.

Also chemicals which needs to be manufactured in big factories using oil/Watts to run the machines. Even you live and breathe; CO2.[

Judging others is insensitive, also a burden on (social) environment.

All people live and burden mother earth to some extend. That's life, until you die. Then the worms can eat you. That's good, you are being well used, to profit others. Cremating is an extra burden; all energy it takes, and withdrawing worms their food.

Where I live, bodies don't decompose. Too hot and too dry. They mummify.

However, whenever I HAVE A CHOICE, I do the environmentally responsible thing.

As to being 'judgmental,' why not? Were you not being judgmental of me because, well, you don't drive a car and do other things, and because you assumed that I was an irresponsible enemy to the environment BECAUSE I am conservative?

Here's a hint. "Conservative' comes from the word 'conserve.' I believe the bible when I read that we have been given the earth to be good stewards over. To conserve it, protect it, and live responsibly in it.

You were bragging about how environmentally responsible you are.....and then you drop the bombs about wearing polyester shirts because its too much trouble to wash cotton and because they last longer.

I'm sorry, but that's a really environmentally lousy reason to choose polyester over natural fibers like cotton and wool...or even silk. People have been washing natural fiber garments without washing machines or 'chemicals' (meaning petroleum based chemicals) for thousands of years. ...and because they LAST longer? Sheesh.

I'm beginning to think that some enviromentalists are short sighted, and contradictory. I mean really; if you are all that worried about the CO2 living critters produce, you'd be applauding all the folks who pretty much killed off the American bison. After all, those formerly millions and millions of bison produced a LOT of Co2, didn't they? And it's not as if there were as many trees soaking it all up as there are NOW in the USA, because there weren't.

Sometimes I have to wonder a bit.

No, sir....if I have the CHOICE, I'll go 'environmentalist,' though that's not what I'm thinking about at the time. When I don't have a choice, (like with cars) I just do what I can.

Oh, and I have one package of plastic straws that I have used and reused for nearly seven years now. They are washable, did you know that? And when they finally can't be used for drinks, they make MARVELOUS knitting markers. None of my straws end up in a land fill. How about you?

 

[dianaiad]

Haggis is an animal....not a tree!

It;s mostly oatmeal, and entirely offal.

Oh, and you are missing the beards.

 

[stvdv]

As to being 'judgmental,' why not? Were you not being judgmental of me because, well, you don't drive a car and do other things, and because you assumed that I was an irresponsible enemy to the environment BECAUSE I am conservative?

No. Not at all. I did not judge you.

 

[stvdv]

You were bragging about how environmentally responsible you are.....and then you drop the bombs about wearing polyester shirts because its too much trouble to wash cotton and because they last longer.

I was not bragging. You have wrongly interpreted it that way.

I was humbly admitting that I am not perfect, because I choose to buy these 5 polyester T-shirts. And that I don't feel guilty about it. And I will be a proud user of them for the next 10 years (maybe God makes them last forever)

And I don't let you talk me into guilt feeling

Try your luck elsewhere

 

[dianaiad]

I was not bragging. You have wrongly interpreted it that way.

I was humbly admitting that I am not perfect, because I choose to buy these 5 polyester T-shirts. And that I don't feel guilty about it. And I will be a proud user of them for the next 10 years (maybe God makes them last forever)

And I don't let you talk me into guilt feeling

Try your luck elsewhere

No problem.

Now face the mirror when you post about me, and we're 'square.'

 

[metis]

Let me just say that I've done more than my share of planting trees and shrubs. One of my close friends told me that the only way I could plant more is to put sod on top of my house and plant stuff there.

 

[Revoltingest]

It;s mostly oatmeal, and entirely offal.

Oh, and you are missing the beards.

These haggi are straight, so they don't need beards.

 

[sun rise]

Scientists Just Created a Bacteria That Eats CO2 to Reduce Greenhouse Gases

There are many solutions being worked on this being one. And those include solutions that both left and right can agree on as long as we all see there's an issue that needs to be addressed.

In the end there is no surrogate to stop burning fossil fuel.

Economics is a big part of that. The cost of solar cells + battery storage is decreasing all the time including new technology under development.

 

[Shad]

Let's say that this study is accurate. How many of those who say that climate change is not a problem because they assume the solution is massive government intervention will change their minds based on this:

Scientists Identify How Many Trees to Plant and Where to Plant Them to Stop Climate Crisis

Around 0.9 billion hectares (2.2 billion acres) of land worldwide would be suitable for reforestation, which could ultimately capture two thirds of human-made carbon emissions.


The Crowther Lab of ETH Zurich has published a study in the journal Science that shows this would be the most effective method to combat climate change.


The Crowther Lab at ETH Zurich investigates nature-based solutions to climate change. In their latest study, the researchers showed for the first time where in the world new trees could grow and how much carbon they would store.

It is only massive sending if one's government has ignored the issue and are incompetent. Replanting by the logging industry up here is law and has been for decades. It does not require massive funding as the company has to cover the costs in order to gain logging rights. Costs are mostly contained to enforcement, maintenance staff and court battles for violations. Granted some costs are shifted to environmental departments such as Forest Management. Any government can shift most of the costs to the commercial sector by regulating replanting for logging rights. More so on the society level many individuals, organizations, and companies, at least around here, already promote replanting without government aid be it due to their views, PR, or creating one's own raw resources for later harvesting following the lines of agriculture with a far longer time frame.

I have noticed a lot of solutions proposed here and by other sources have been a standard in BC for decades.

 

[sun rise]

It is only massive sending if one's government has ignored the issue and are incompetent. Replanting by the logging industry up here is law and has been for decades. It does not require massive funding as the company has to cover the costs in order to gain logging rights. Costs are mostly contained to enforcement, maintenance staff and court battles for violations. Granted some costs are shifted to environmental departments such as Forest Management. Any government can shift most of the costs to the commercial sector by regulating replanting for logging rights. More so on the society level many individuals, organizations, and companies, at least around here, already promote replanting without government aid be it due to their views, PR, or creating one's own raw resources for later harvesting following the lines of agriculture with a far longer time frame.

I have noticed a lot of solutions proposed here and by other sources have been a standard in BC for decades.

It's nice to hear that some are more advanced than we are.

 

[crossfire]

I think one of the things that is keeping individual homeowners in my area from planting more trees is that there is so much governmental red tape involved if you want to remove a tree from your property.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think one of the things that is keeping individual homeowners in my area from planting more trees is that there is so much governmental red tape involved if you want to remove a tree from your property.

Some time ago, my town proposed a tree ordinance which essentially
gave the city ownership of all trees over 4" diameter. To remove one,
a property owner would have to pay. Many of us were planning to
remove every tree which might be in the way of future needs, eg,
expanding a building or parking. Fortunately, the measure died a
well deserved death.

 

[Shad]

It's nice to hear that some are more advanced than we are.

Frankly a lot of the regulations around here is just common sense. It has little to do with any major climate change movement or party that has been in the spot light over the years. Environmentalism at best but mostly from the 70s and 80s groups.

 

[rational experiences]

So, okay. Instead of being consistently negative, offer up something positive -- propose a solution. The fact is, and this is a well-documented fact CO2 levels are rising. Nothing we're doing is stopping that, and much that we're doing is exacerbating it.

Human males are all just a human. We all live today due to human sex. We do not all live today because you can think. We own natural instincts first...then science.

Science says I already know about trees, their loss, the fact that I told stories and forced its teaching as preaching, and forced in history everyone to attend religious instructions. It was a community agreement.

Said life was attacked and changed when we altered how the Nature Garden and the Tree of Life existed. So we always knew.

What is the ONLY one effect that you decide as that science mind in knowledge of science to give up?

UFO extra radiation mass and nuclear power plants.

So you have already told your own science selves what you already know. I can replace the huge amount of trees that I have personally removed as a human, but it will not change the natural atmosphere.....and NATURAL is the reference that you are discussing that is relative to life continuance on Earth.

Are you all going to continually lie about what you already know is the problem?

The fact that you ignored your own science teaching that told you that the atmosphere was still being irradiated carbonized by the ancient history science cause, the UFO itself.

Instead of shutting down the power plants you claim that the Tree of Life is going to give you some other reason?

Do you see how inane science has become!