If done right, this could have tremendous benefits beyond the modest carbon sequestration.
But I doubt any plan from the Republican Party would be done right, given their outright hostility to scientists and other experts.
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
93 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5289 readers
482 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Assuredly it will be done with little oversight, managed by a shell corporation ran be a close constituent that is over charging per a tree and will never be completed.
The problem is that even if it was "done right" it would:
- Require three times the land area of India
- Be a partial solution, and not the kind of complete solution that the Republicans are trying to claim it as
Exactly this. Impractical answers are what they live off, because it lets them stall. It’s depressing there’s no solutions apart from “keep doing dumb shit for money” on their wheel of choices.
It let's them stall and line their pockets while being able to say government doesn't work and everything should be privatized
This is the only way this makes sense. It's def gonna be a situation where $millions+ disappear, they never plant the trees, and everyone forgets this was ever promised.
We'll point to this as an example of why we can't trust Republicans, and they'll just come back with something about Clinton's BJ
....so does this mean the GOP now thinks Climate change is real, then?
They're slowly walking from "it's a hoax" to "it's real, but fossil fuels didn't do it" to "we'll only push stuff which isn't sufficient" to "oops"
No, they’ll eventually blame the other party if left alone to long. Attempting to gaslight younger generations into believing the GOP was trying to fix it and the left wanted to watch the world burn.
Go ahead, plant trees. It's a good idea, just agree to the program being run by the US Forestry service. Also agree that in no way does this mean the US doesn't have to meet our net zero emissions commitments.
I agree with the plan to plant a trillion trees. But let’s not stop there.
Critique? You mean a complex problem cannot be fixed by a simple solution?
I know what to do!!
Just plant more trees!
My assumption is the GOP plan is to plant them in deserts for shade.
There's actually some evidence that a variant of that would help green a desert. This is also a traditional method of farming, to farm under the shade of a tree since the partial shade helps yields of many crops by noticably reducing the amount evaporation affecting the plant
It's kind of surprising, and refreshing, that they even have a climate strategy, right? Looking beyond if it's a good strategy or not, does this signify a shift from climate denialism?
The Republicans have a really bad climate strategy - the idea is to gut actual action and replace it with symbolic ineffective actions, including the tree planting thing that's mentioned here.
Not really, imo. This is the standard republican MO - when it gets too hard to lie to people and have a full half of them believe you, switch it up and act like it was your idea all along. But also make sure it's the slowest, least effective solution available, which gives you the ammo to claim 1) you're doing something and 2) no one else needs to do anything.
This is 100% an attempt to capture the narrative so that they can kill it off quietly in the background, but still campaign on it.
If by chance this does get enacted, expect it to be an incredibly overpriced boondoggle where they contract with their donors' companies and throw cash at them to beef up paper mill forests.
Where will they be planted? Will the trees be native to the area? How long will they be cared for and maintained, to ensure growth?
All those things matter, otherwise the trees just die and don’t do their job as carbon sinks (in this case).
These are the real questions and you know the answers... these are Republicans.
Mmkay.
Where are they going to plant them?
Also how will you manage them responsibly so that they don't immediately become wildfire tinder?
How are we going to water those new trees in a mega drought?
With the tears of starving children after rescinding their family's food stamps.
Or how about how they all get burned up in the numerous forest fires.