Forests the Size of France Regrown Since 2000, Study Suggests (bbc.com) 70
An area of forest the size of France has regrown naturally across the world in the last 20 years, a study suggests. The BBC reports: The restored forests have the potential to soak up the equivalent of 5.9 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide - more than the annual emissions of the US, according to conservation groups. A team led by WWF used satellite data to build a map of regenerated forests. Forest regeneration involves restoring natural woodland through little or no intervention. This ranges from doing nothing at all to planting native trees, fencing off livestock or removing invasive plants.
The Atlantic Forest in Brazil gives reason for hope, the study said, with an area roughly the size of the Netherlands having regrown since 2000. In the boreal forests of northern Mongolia, 1.2 million hectares of forest have regenerated in the last 20 years, while other regeneration hotspots include central Africa and the boreal forests of Canada. The researchers warned that forests across the world face "significant threats." "Despite 'encouraging signs' with forests along Brazil's Atlantic coast, deforestation is such that the forested area needs to more than double to reach the minimal threshold for conservation," the report says.
The Atlantic Forest in Brazil gives reason for hope, the study said, with an area roughly the size of the Netherlands having regrown since 2000. In the boreal forests of northern Mongolia, 1.2 million hectares of forest have regenerated in the last 20 years, while other regeneration hotspots include central Africa and the boreal forests of Canada. The researchers warned that forests across the world face "significant threats." "Despite 'encouraging signs' with forests along Brazil's Atlantic coast, deforestation is such that the forested area needs to more than double to reach the minimal threshold for conservation," the report says.
Re: (Score:1)
By avoiding work whenever possible
best news all day (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think if everyone with a balcony in a city put some potted plants on their balcony there would be a noticeable dent.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, if you completely ignore the logistics of delivering all that soil, clay pots and fertilizer
Re:best news all day (Score:5, Informative)
Believe it or not, most of it is already fully stocked locally to them and waiting on standby. WTF do you think hardware stores sell in the city? Also, clay pots and fancy potting soil are an unnecessary cost and weight. You can grow grass in just about any wet dirt in just about any container you would have otherwise thrown in the trash. Seriously, grass doesn't care. I challenge you to leave an up-cycled open container of free dirt on you balcony all year and stop shit from growing in it without chemical defoliants or a flamethrower.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, most of it is already fully stocked locally to them and waiting on standby. WTF do you think hardware stores sell in the city? Also, clay pots and fancy potting soil are an unnecessary cost and weight. You can grow grass in just about any wet dirt in just about any container you would have otherwise thrown in the trash. Seriously, grass doesn't care. I challenge you to leave an up-cycled open container of free dirt on you balcony all year and stop shit from growing in it without chemical defoliants or a flamethrower.
Try living somewhere remotely warm, like Perth, Western Australia.
All you'll have to do is not water it.
Seriously, there are a lot of places where grass would never grow if not heavily maintained by humans. Las Vegas, Dubai, et al.
Re: (Score:1)
Somehow I doubt that Home Depot is going to have enough of their supplies to deliver to every single Balcony in the city. You don’t just get to ignore it because it’s already been done. This is the same problem we’re having with carbon credits. On top of that you’re obviously abusing moderation system.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think if everyone with a balcony in a city put some potted plants on their balcony there would be a noticeable dent.
There are single forests in Australia big enough that'd dwarf everyone in the world doing that. Don't get me wrong , every bit counts but I really don't think individual contributions really ammount to much in the scheme of CO2.
The absolute best way to geo-engineer our way out of the impending crisis is to plant forests everywhere, I mean just go nuts on it, convert deserts into jungles, the
Free executions for loggers in Tibet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
off course the delta is still in the red but let's all do our part
Do you have a source for the delta being in the red? The trend in the past decades is towards more forest and more trees globally.
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tldr version (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Tldr version (Score:4, Insightful)
Darling, if humans start dying of en masse anthropogenically, I promise you that it will be by a much more direct method than a few degrees of global warming over a few centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobodies talking bout a few degrees of a global warming. Even them most conservative estimates would suggest thats incredibly unlikely.
We're talking a few degrees in a few decades on top of the couple of degrees we've had already, and between 4-10 in a century (6 degrees would roughly have us caught up with the last time climate change nearly sterilized the planet).
I mean, this isn't controversial, at least not to people who dont get their science off spiral eyed right wing youtube channels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tldr version (Score:2)
We're already seeing the chain reactiom right now as we speak. It's called a runaway greenhouse effect.
And what will fuck us up will be flooding in the coastal areas and droughts everywhere else. Think sahara but from almost pole to pole.
It wll simply be a lack of food. Our supply chains will die. Since we are at the top, and so a few, very simple things can make the whole thing fall apart.
Simple things like a lack of pollinators. Or nothing to irrigate plans with in a way that lets most people survive.
Gran
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Global warming is actually increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere and therefore creating more rain in areas with heavy rain. Deserts remain deserts due to existing patterns. You can come to Hawaii and check it out yourself. If anything it's raining way more and heavy storms are increasing.
Re: Tldr version (Score:1)
Humans? Oh shit! There goes the planet. [youtu.be]
Who's Got The Most Trees? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who's Got The Most Trees? (Score:2)
Wat?
Who in Europe still burns wood for fuel?
You think we're in the dark ages or something?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who in Europe still burns wood for fuel?
You think we're in the dark ages or something?
Yes, and yes. Parent is talking about EU carbon accounting, which counts burning of wood in large scale uses as being a carbon neutral usage. This conversion of a coal plant is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who's Got The Most Trees? (Score:5, Interesting)
Those countries are only that high because of their size. A comparison of forest coverage [wikipedia.org] would be more informative as to how they are performing. For example, when sorted by percentage coverage Brazil at 61.9%, though still way down the list, comes out ahead of Russia at 49.4%. Also, the US and Canada end up neck and neck around 34%.
Even that seems misleading though. It would be interesting if someone could put together a ranking of coverage versus something akin to potential because just a plain coverage measurement penalizes countries that are mostly desert.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I on slashdot or what??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Am I on slashdot or what??? (Score:5, Funny)
According to this standards converter anyway. [theregister.com] It looks legit to me.
Re:Am I on slashdot or what??? (Score:4, Funny)
That depends on how Belgian farmers move their field posts [bbc.com], I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
France: 159.087 million acres
American Football field: 1.32 acres
That makes 120.5 million American football fields.
Somebody had to do it.
Calibration Question (Score:3)
Is that with or without its overseas territories?
Re: (Score:3)
Is that with or without its overseas territories?
If anyone is keeping score, St. Pierre and Miquelon are 45,012 American football fields.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is that in rugby fields?
It's not sustainable (Score:5, Informative)
It is sustainable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just forest cover that's important though, but also the quality or health of that forest. Unfortunately, many European forests are struggling due to increasing drought conditions:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make any sense. If not in their biomass, then where the hell are those young forests sequestering carbon?
Re: (Score:2)
How to make it sustainable (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the reforestation occurred in areas that burned down due to desertification (eg US West coast) and human carelessness/malice so I think it's still a net loss.
How many centurion trees in these forests? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Older trees sequester more CO2.
Old forests may sequester more, but they are not net consumers of CO2.
To pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, the best technique is to grow seedlings to about 10 cm in diameter and then repeatedly coppice [wikipedia.org] the trees.
The harvested wood can be chipped for paper or particleboard, or used for biofuel.
Our planet is getting greener (Score:1, Informative)
Re: Our planet is getting greener (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intensive agriculture is a problem as well though since it depletes phosphorus and reserves and aquifers, both of which are non-renewable on a human timescale.
Ironically ... (Score:2)
Not in France.
Re: (Score:2)
-- A Belgian farmer
Re: CO2 doing its thing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was at school we learned that plants like CO2.
Plants will fix carbon from CO2, but that's only half the story. Those who passed biology know that plants also respire, and release CO2 back into the atmosphere in the process. A lot of plants barely break even in the process.
So, the problem requies pie in the sky. (Score:2)
To help correct in any meaningful way, the progress needs to be, unnaturally better than natural progression.
So, what next, we hit that mark.
Then THAT isn't good enough. So the 6,000 HP goalpost rockets away and we're now being exhorted to double or treble or quadruple the previous benchmark...
Not all forests are created equal (Score:1)
Or is this just about fuck all other animals and insects and lets preserve ourselves?