
Shell boss says mass reforestation needed to limit temperature rises to 1.5C - jxub
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/shell-ben-van-beurden-mass-reforestation-un-climate-change-target
======
mikestew
Flagged-to-death comment notwithstanding, I do wonder of the motivation. He is
certainly stating the obvious in that he's just parroting what the recent
report is saying, minus the "fossil fuels have to go way" part. On the other
hand, what he said doesn't mean anything at all, because he didn't follow up
with, "therefore, starting today, we are instituting a new, multi-billion
dollar reforestation program..."

So I guess I'm kinda thinking I ought to go vouch that dead comment.

------
AtlasBarfed
Pony up the bucks, Shell and their ilk externalized and dumped environmental
costs on society and the planet for a century.

They should be paying for whatever active geoengineering can be done. All
executives current and former should have 75% of their net worth taxed.

A 200% gasoline tax should be imposed. Think that is too much? Do napkin
calculations on the cost to remove the CO2 that results from burning a gallon
of gasoline.

Sprawl property taxes should be immediately instituted.

Massive government research should be initiated in wind, solar, battery,
thorium reactors, lab-grown meat, vertical farming, bio/algal fuels, and space
mining.

I won't hold my breath.

------
karmajunkie
Thank you Captain Obvious... maybe since so much of oil & gas companies'
income is from a product that is the direct and chief contributor to global
climate change, and (in the US at least) so much political inertia has been
created in climate denialism by "research" they've "sponsored" over the last
40 years, maybe these companies ought to be leading the charge on exactly that
reforestation.

------
vondur
How feasible is something like this? I think we'd have a hard time telling a
country to tear down farms and other developed land to let it return to rain
forest.

~~~
jmts
I've been curious for a while why we don't have more plants on buildings. Roof
space seems to be wasted a lot of the time, why not put a park there? Is it
considered a hazard?

~~~
ptrott2017
unless they were designed for the load, long time water retention etc- it can
be an expensive rennovation/refit and brings additional maintenance costs but
it is still a good idea.

There are increasingly Tax breaks for necessary investment available in cities
in the US doing this (1)and certainly many other countries/regions e.g (2)
have various on going policy initiatives for similar developments.

all in all - its highly dependent on the building and local planning
regulations - but more and more places are open to supporting it and hopefully
actual adoption and implementation accelerates soon.

(1) [http://myplantconnection.com/green-roofs-
legislation.php](http://myplantconnection.com/green-roofs-legislation.php)

(2)
[http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/background...](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/background.htm)

