BecomeMe

805 readers

1 users here now

Social Experiment. Become Me. What I see, you see.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Stop Planting Trees, Says Guy Who Inspired World to Plant a Trillion Trees (www.wired.co.uk)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

• 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Honest question; how are carbon credits supposed to help? They sound like tokens you spend to let you polute for being a "good" company.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Also, the carbon footprint of a wild deer vs a farm cow is absolutely tiny.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I guess? Carbon credits dont make sense to me. The fucken planet doesnt know you have this human concept that means its okay to pollute. So I was wondering how it helps cause I dont see how. I guess I could see the hunting side if you are hunting something that is invasive or if their numbers are so high its detrimental but idk how often thats necessary in our lobster pot world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

I beleive the way should work is that credits cant just be made up. In order for the polluter to buy a credit, a cleaner needs to do something to generate the credit (carbon capture/plant tree/etc). So cleaner companies are incentivised to expand their operations, and polluters are incentivised to limit their carbon pollution, so they dont have to spend money on carbon credits.

Of course, there are a heap on administrative and political issues, notably:

cleaners can lie about how much they cleanup
polluters can price their products a bit higher and juat not worry about it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The amount of "tokens" on the market is capped. This creates scarcity, and should help map out costs that used to be externalised, outside of the price of what pollutes. The credits force the cost of externality to be internalised into the price.

The idea is very good.

The issues are that it could in some cases actually slow down progress on cleaner processes and that the pricing can be very wrong, it all depends on how many credits are made avaliable on the market.

Another issue is that it, if poorly implemented, can create unfair competition, e.g. flooding the market EU market with cheap products from other continents where regulation differs and no import taxes to match that gap.