all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Do anyone have that new article that was like, accusing them of genociding a desert because they turned it into a forest or some shit? I remember it form a year or so back. The reforested an area of desert and this journalist was losing him mind over it.

Edit:

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/414155

Ok apparently I posted about it and my memory is just that bad. Lmao. Thanks to comrade GrainEater for reminding me.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    The biggest criticism I've seen is that the planting project ended up being a huge monoculture of poplar trees, but that was kinda the norm back then in reforestation.

    The last I heard the forest they planted was dying from a beetle infestation, and they were going to attempt a redo with a lot more species of trees.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But fostering biodiversity remains a challenge, conservationists say

    Checkmate China, what's the point if you can't just magically spawn the Amazon forest

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago*

    That is a valid concern. One of the largest problems with the project was that they planted massive monocultures of single trees. Something that is extremely dangerous as a single parasite, disease, or pest could annihilate hundreds of thousands of square kilometers.

    Plus monocultures limit biodiversity to an extreme capacity as the entire forest is suitable only to a very limited number of species. It’s not that the animals aren’t there to begin with, it’s that not many can survive in the mass monoculture forest.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago

    South America and Africa having lost about 13% forest coverage over 30 years is extremely sad

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Can someone explains this map to me? The text says China leads, but the numbers say Vietnam is at 56.2%, greater than China's 40%.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, it's pretty obvious.. China is huge, Vietnam is tiny compared to it. The reforested area is, therefore, much larger in China.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Also vietnam is still recovering from the war I imagine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's hard to take care of the forest when there is still tons of inexploded murican ordnance in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    The map is the forest area in 2020, relative to existing forest area in 1990 (no change would be 0%).

    So, if you count by absolute area, China leads, and if you count by relative area, Uruguay leads.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    Why is “private forest ownership” a thing?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Hey, the US actually expanded its forests. Go us!

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)