this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
19 points (95.2% liked)
BecomeMe
805 readers
1 users here now
Social Experiment. Become Me. What I see, you see.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
• Crowther's research found that there is room on Earth for 1.2 trillion trees, which can absorb up to two-thirds of the carbon.
• The study sparked a tree-planting craze among companies and leaders seeking to bolster their environmental credentials.
• This led to a firestorm of criticism from scientists who argued that Crowther's study vastly overestimated the area of land suitable for reforestation.
• Crowther published a more detailed paper showing that preserving existing forests can have a greater impact on the climate than planting trees.
• The study caused a crisis of confidence in conservation programs, as the purchase of private carbon credits for forest conservation proved futile.
Honest question; how are carbon credits supposed to help? They sound like tokens you spend to let you polute for being a "good" company.
I might get flak for this, but isn't this the same idea behind hunting for the sake of conservation? Essentially, you just get a free pass and a karma pass to kill cause you paid an obscene amount of money for the right?
You're confusing two very different things ... Trophy hunting of endangered/exotic species and game hunting(deer, turkey, elk, etc).
Game hunting is a net positive because it controls populations that need population control. No hunter I've ever met would kill and let the meat go to waste.
Also, the carbon footprint of a wild deer vs a farm cow is absolutely tiny.