Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
China Earth Technology

China and India Lead the Way in Greening (nasa.gov) 115

hackingbear writes: The world is literally a greener place than it was twenty years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage. A new study shows that China and India -- the world's most populous countries -- are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries. Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues first detected the greening phenomenon in satellite data from the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was a chief cause. The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China. "China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9 percent of the planet's land area covered in vegetation," said lead author Chi Chen of Boston University. "That is a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation." China's outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part from its programs to conserve and expand forests (about 42 percent of the greening contribution). These programs were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution, and climate change.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China and India Lead the Way in Greening

Comments Filter:
  • by pablo_max ( 626328 ) on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @01:19PM (#58116710)

    USA leads in climate change denial. Take that, nature!

    • by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <sdotno@NOSpAM.cheapcomplexdevices.com> on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @01:44PM (#58116870)
      "Greening" by creating forests where previously there were none counts as a form of climate change too.

      While green forests are cool, are there concerns for the previous non-forest ecosystems that were there?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      USA leads in climate change denial.

      Maybe instead of building a wall along the border with Mexico, we should be planting trees along it?

      I mean, not normal trees, but Normandy-like hedgerows that were impassable by the US troops in WWII. They needed to mount tusk-like diggers on Sherman tanks to get through.

      It would keep folks from sneaking across the border illegally, and be Green, as well.

      . . . unless the border crashers get their hands on some Sherman tanks.

      • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        USA leads in climate change denial.

        No we don't We actually do most of the science that is proving it is a issue. If it wasn't for NASA research in Antarctica and from space we wouldn't never have known about the Ozone issue with CFC till it was to late. It is only small, but loud, minority that denies the issue.

      • If you look at states like NH there are far more trees now then when it was farm land in the early 20th C.

        There are far more trees in NA today then there were in 1900.
        • Trees get addicted to drugs and end up in Narcotics Anonymous? Well I guess you do learn something every day.

        • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

          Probably not too challenging when the native forests were clear cut by invading colonists in the few centuries before that.

          • Invading colonists?

            Like the invading Han Chinese? Or the invading Persians?

            the history of humanity, up to early modern times (roughly 1500 CE), was one of conflict between semi-nomadic people and civilized peoples (those living in cities with agriculture) .

            Our history books may focus on the conflict between settled peoples but the primary change was whenever agricultural peoples came across lands held by semi-nomadic people. The agricultural (civilized) peoples considered this to be unsettled, uncl
            • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

              Like the invading Han Chinese? Or the invading Persians?

              Like how many of those were running around New Hampshire? You know, the state you were talking about.

              Our history books may focus on the conflict between settled peoples but the primary change was whenever agricultural peoples came across lands held by semi-nomadic people. The agricultural (civilized) peoples considered this to be unsettled, unclaimed land.

              A very Europcentric view of history. Most of the planet was just fine until Europeans invented

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Actually, if the climate supports it, that would be a good idea. Problems include growing a hedgerow being labour intensive as you have to partially cut the stems and weave them together, but you could hire illegals and taking a while to grow.
        Besides the traditional Hawthorne, you could plant a Barberry or Pyracantha hedge. I knew someone with a Barberry one, it was impassible without a chainsaw and even with, those 2 inch needle sharp thorns were horrible, go right through most shoes.

      • /Sarcasm This is "congress" we're talking about -- the "opposite" of progress. =P

    • Nobody denies that the climate is changing. Only the foolishness that is being proposed as solutions.

      Oh - and little things such as the non-falsifiable claims.
  • I can't imagine that sits well with them.
    • uh, you really should be paying attention to our food. Have you wondered why our Apple Juice, honey, V8 juice now contains high levels of Lead, Mercury, Pesticides (even in ones that are marked organic ), fungicides, herbicides, etc, amongst other pollutants? Yeah. Got news for you. THis is the FASTEST way to figure out where our food is coming from.
      Have you looked at our fish? It is not only mislabeled, but also loaded with all sorts of items that are not found in Alaska. That Salmon and 'Alaskan Cod'
  • by satsuke ( 263225 ) on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @01:39PM (#58116830)

    It's like everywhere else has recognized that the cost of deploying renewables are now cheaper than their equivalent fossil fuels counterparts.

    It makes more economic sense to be green than it does to be dirty...

    The article is about literal greening of areas of course, but the underlying reason is similar.

    • As I pointed out to somebody else below, America, like most of the west, has gone down every year for the last 10, until this year.
      China has grown every year ( or flattened for a couple of years ), for the last 30+ years.
      And you think that planting a few trees is helping? Hmmm.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Sure, we reached peak per capita CO2 production with nowhere to go but down while China and especially India are still relatively low per capita.
        The real problem is how much CO2 we produce compared to the Vatican if we're going to compare countries without considering size or population.

        • Actually, that is not true.
          CHina is already above per capita that they need to be. Hell, they were above EU's average clear back in early 2010's, and continue to grow theirs. Yet, EU who is less than China, continues to work to drop theirs. Why? Because emissions are emissions. The ONLY time that CHina flat lined was when their economy had crashed and they were lying about it (2014-6). But, they have NOT dropped emissions.
          Now, for 2-3 years in a row, it is not only growing, but ACCELERATING. It is kno
          • by dryeo ( 100693 )

            Perhaps you have some more recent figures as the most up to date I find quickly are from 2014 which show the USA emitting over twice the carbon on a per capita basis as China, 16.5 tonnes per year vs 7.5 tonnes per person per year with India at 1.7.
            The data I'm looking at doesn't lump the EU together, but has Poland at the same level as China, Germany and even Finland higher and the UK, Italy and the less developed parts of the EU lower.
            The idea of someone bitching about someone else emitting half or close

      • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

        As I pointed out to somebody else below, America, like most of the west, has gone down every year for the last 10, until this year. China has grown every year ( or flattened for a couple of years ), for the last 30+ years.

        And as needed to be pointed out in return: China + India have about seven times the population of the United States. That means that they get to pollute seven times as much. As someone else pointed out, we don't say the Vatican is free to pollute just as much as the United States, becau

        • No. China and India do NOT get to pollute 7 times more than America. Neither have the economy that America has (china is approaching), which it is GDP that is the real producer of CO2. Hpowever, the REAL problem is that ALL nations need to drop our CO2, or at worst, not grow it. India needs to stop their CO2 growth, but thankfully, they are fairly low (though they are 3rd highest emitter).

          And no, we need on-demand systems. Nuke is not only viable, but probably the only real choice. This BS about heavily
          • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

            No. China and India do NOT get to pollute 7 times more than America.

            Of course they do, when they have 7 times the population.

            Neither have the economy that America has (china is approaching)

            The only thing that matters is per-capita pollution - everything else is rationalization for western arrogance and entitlement. Moreso when most of the CO2 that has been pumped into the atmosphere over the past 150 years has come from western countries. And again, much of that pollution in China you're complaining about

  • by zlives ( 2009072 ) on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @01:40PM (#58116838)

    high co2 content good for trees...

  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @01:41PM (#58116844) Homepage Journal

    China is reclaiming desert with grid plantings.

    My understanding is that the USA has at least as many forested acres as ever, but a lot less biomass, and a lot of dead trees. Old growth is taller so it slows wind down more, and it's also more massive so it fixes more carbon. (Trees only grow from a thin layer beneath the bark, and the rate of growth is limited by photosynthesis, with larger trees able to do more of it because they have more leaf area with which to receive insolation.)

    Is there a biomass index?

    • Is there a biomass index?

      There's one for the US [fs.fed.us]. Presumably other governments have something similar.

    • I thought they'd be against the sietch way of life, but since the government's doing it, it's obvious -- they're trying to corral, herd, and finally control Shai-Hulud. I guess when they think about extending lifespans via socialized medicine, they think *big*.

    • by mpercy ( 1085347 )

      https://education.seattlepi.co... [seattlepi.com]

      "As of 2010, the United States had 304,022,000 hectares (751,255,000 acres) of forested lands, a number that represents one-third of the country. Of this area, 25 percent is old growth forest, 67 percent is secondary forest, and 8 percent is tree farms or plantations."

      "It is estimated that prior to European settlement, the United States. was 46 percent forested. European settlers quickly harvested much of the available timber for housing, industry, the creation of railroads

  • by Dasher42 ( 514179 ) on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @01:51PM (#58116902)

    We have absolutely got to do something about climate change. Most of what we've got to do would also make the world a lot better in sundry other ways.

    If we helped the landscape keep multiple stories of vegetation, and worked out ways to scale orchards designed the same way, it would make for great resistance to drought and a stable food supply, and over time, correct for this spike in greenhouse gasses.

    Entire horticultural and early agriculture civilizations have been founded not on controlling the landscape's entire harvest, but on enriching it and reaping the surplus. In this way of life, economy and environment are not at all at odds. In fact, they are interdependent. You can look at terra preta and its history in the Amazon basin for an example of a long-term, large-scale win-win scenario. http://news.cornell.edu/storie... [cornell.edu]

    If you want to see what is happening in China, watch this video, "The Lessons of the Loess Plateau": https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Even if you don't exactly agree with *how* they got it done, the results for the landscape and the prosperity of the people there speak for themselves. Start asking how your local economic and political systems can start to do right by the soil too.

  • If we're serious about building Trantor, this is exactly the WRONG WAY to go.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @03:43PM (#58117464) Journal
    We have Brazil clear cutting their forest so as to supply Europe with Beef, and CHina with exotic woods.
    Then we have the west which has already done a number on our forest and are not replanting fast enough.
    So, it is good to actually see both China and India showing the rest of the world what needs to happen.
    It will not help that much with the CO2, but it will help absorb pollution, etc.
  • The problem is that China has basically destroyed large segments of it's barrier islands and wetlands that absorb storm damage, so expect to read in a few years about how much damage has dramatically increased in China from storms, that otherwise would have not caused major calamities.

  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @04:37PM (#58117816) Journal
    The man single-handedly planted a 550 hectare forest [aljazeera.com] over a period of 30 years which, oddly enough, brought back animals and even a stream to the barren land.

    He has gone on to plant another 150 hectares of land nearby.

    In 2016, India planted 50 million trees [nationalgeographic.com] (saplings of various types) as part of its deal with the Paris Climate Accord.
  • I think there was an article on slashdot, not long ago, about 97% of ocean plastics coming from Africa and China?

  • Is that "green?"

    Some animals China is driving into extinction:

    - vaquita
    - pangolin
    - elephants
    - rhinoceros

    Several others.

  • Per recent review: As seen by NASA, the world is getting greener due to expansion of silviculture and intensive agriculture. China and Indiaâ"the worldâ(TM)s most populous countriesâ"are leading the increase in greening on land. The greening is anthropogenic, due to fossil-fueled industrial agriculture. Global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s [arid land when irrigated turns green until ground water is exhausted or there is no fuel for pumping], an area equivale

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Working...