This article is frustrating for me. Especially his take on trees. The article states the target goal/amount of trees planted would only reduce carbon 6%. Ok, but, it will reduce temperature. I live in WV near a state forest. It is typically 7°-15° F cooler at my house than in town. Additionally, the sun in the summer doesn’t even hit my house until noon-ish, which significantly reduces my air conditioner consumption.

I chose to share this mostly for awareness. I am not especially fond of his perspective.

  • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The only way to stop is to end coal, oil and gas oxidation to CO2. All other things are misdirection, at best.

    You are absolutely correct. If we want to stop global climate change, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

    And there are so many other benefits to the environment of growing more trees - especially native species - that anybody who says growing trees is useless is just not paying attention.

    And and trees are made of CO2 and release it when they’re burned or decay, which makes them, quite literally, carbon neutral. In terms of fuel and building material and so forth wood may not be perfect but it’s better than a lot of nonrenewable alternatives.