this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
117 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5055 readers
672 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Large-scale tree planting can remove some CO2 from the atmosphere, but nowhere near as much as humans add by extracting and burning fossil fuels. See https://skepticalscience.com/1-trillion-trees-impact.html for a detailed assessment of what this looks like.

The IPCC has a chart showing what actions need to be taken over the next few years. Afforestation is one piece of many things, all of which we need to do.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

A trillion? Do they know how many trees that is, and how long that would take?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Conservatives do not believe in math or science... So, no.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I think many Republicans have always had the opinion of "we will just fix it when or if it becomes a problem", despite the fact that most studies (and common sense) has shown that it will be harder and harder (and more expensive) the longer we wait, or possibly not fixable at all.
So to answer your question: No, they have no fucking clue how long it will take or how much it will cost to plant 1 trillion trees.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It would take much longer for the trees to become effective carbon capture utilities than the destruction caused by coal mines and fossil fuels the Rs would likely push alongside their newfound climate wisdom.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Hybrid willows and poplars grow about 8ft per year in ideal conditions.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trees are expensive, and planting trees means you can hire workers to perform back breaking work for little pay. It's surprising that republicans are just now realizing that they can grift this to hell and back.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most trees are not expensive if you plant them from seed or buy them as a small sapling.

Source: I buy/grow a lot of trees and browse a lot of nurseries.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sure. But whatever cost it is times a trillion is a lot, and there's a multiplicative effect. The value of the trees will compound over time, and very likely private entities will be able to harvest those trees for sale. A non zero amount of any proceeds will eventually make their way into politicians' donations.