
Nasa Says Earth Is Greener Today Than 20 Years Ago Thanks to China, India - vanwilder77
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/#752468336e13
======
wickedwiesel
Yes, India and China may be "greener". But, as the referenced article [0]
states: _The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%), but
in India is mostly from croplands (82%) with minor contribution from forests
(4.4%)._ _Main_ driver for greening according to the authors is an increase in
food production.

It is not re-forestation as the Forbes' author wants readers to think: _Both
China and India went through phases of large scale deforestation in the 1970s
and 80s, clearing old growth forests for urban development, farming and
agriculture. However, it is clear that when presented with a problem, humans
are incredibly adept at finding a solution._

The hubris!

This means we actually observe net _deforestation_ , globally, but _also_ in
China [1] and India [2] if you look at tree coverage indicators from Global
Forest Watch. Global Forest Watch also uses satellite images, from a very
similar timeline, so it should be comparable and raise serious doubts on the
positive message of the Forbes article. To preserve biodiversity and combat
climate change, we need more forests, not just more "green" land.

[0] Nature article:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7)

[1] China Forest Watch map: [http://bit.ly/2HGOXtI](http://bit.ly/2HGOXtI)

[2] India Forest Watch map: [http://bit.ly/2qT4e0g](http://bit.ly/2qT4e0g)

(edits to improve formatting)

~~~
rainhacker
A valid critique of the article. Though, to get a well-rounded view on this
matter, take into account the per capita carbon footprints[1] also - which
tells a different story than mainstream media:

Saudi Arabia: 16.85

United States: 15.53

Australia: 15.83

China: 6.59

India: 1.58

[1] [https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-
impacts/sc...](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-
impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html)

------
bakul
[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-
an...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-
dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows)

This NASA article points something out that is missing from the Forbes article
based on the same research: 82% of increased greening in India and 32% in
China is due to intense agricultural activity — harvesting multiple crops per
year. This does not increase biomass as much as by reforestation. Forests
support rich ecosystems and do not use up groundwater unlike intensive
farming.

------
inapis
These kind of article raises more questions than answers. Leaving aside
politics on this, I need to know more.

How does this "greening" help? Is it more due to agriculture or forests? If
it's due to agriculture, what are the unintended consequences?

While this article is positive in its tone (which I appreciate) I can't help
but feel that it's shallow. It's green so yayy! But what comes next? Increased
greenery due to agriculture can probably never have the same positive effects
as a forest, at least for the surrounding ecology and biome.

~~~
Aunche
China has a lot of reforestation projects, the most notable of which is the
"Green Great Wall," which is intended to hinder the growth of the Gobi
dessert. The benefits of this project are questionable because the trees soak
up a lot of groundwater in an already very arid area. Also, the forests rely
on a few species of trees, so it's very vulnerable to disease.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-
North_Shelter_Forest_Pro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-
North_Shelter_Forest_Program)

~~~
ksaj
I had seen a video somewhere that the Green Great Wall was failing and in
constant threat of collapse because of the arid wind and pretty much non-
existent water table causing the trees to die off faster than they can be
planted.

The footage had interviews with a group that tries to keep it watered.

EDIT: It might have been the initiative in Africa (Sahara). I tried finding
the video and am met with similar initiatives on both continents.

------
Hextinium
This is a good counter-argument with some evidence that China and India are
not the toxic hell hole that sometimes pops up in media.

The thing that isn't mentioned in the article and is in the paper is that the
majority >80% of the greening is due to cropland instead of the forests.

~~~
Wohlf
I don't know if it is a counterargument, you can fill your countryside with
trees while also burning a mountain of coal.

~~~
theandrewbailey
It depends on how you're burning the mountain of coal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining)

------
vixen99
China and India's commendable efforts aside, the whole earth has been affected
by global environmental change: Nature Climate Change volume 6, pages 791–795
(2016)

"We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI
(greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4%
of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning)."

"CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend,
followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover
change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening
trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high
latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional
greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States."

------
ixtli
I think its very important to engage with the fact that this is something
China can do because of what we in the west deem unacceptably "authoritarian"
governance. This effect isn't entirely due to people's starry-eyed
conservationism: the government arrests people and closes factories that
violate these ecological goals.

By way of example, this happened a few weeks ago and is very difficult to find
coverage of in english speaking media:
[https://nationalpost.com/news/world/china-makes-arrests-
shut...](https://nationalpost.com/news/world/china-makes-arrests-shuts-down-
rogue-chemical-factories-that-spewed-banned-ozone-depleting-
gas?fbclid=IwAR2D_XkH2BtI20r1AeessWBVp8uMXyIWpe5L4wQ1FZAPaWUreQjuwoszVU4)

~~~
umadon
"the government arrests people and seizes factories that violate these
ecological goals"

Why isn't this a good thing? Shouldn't people who ignore ecological laws be
punished? And anyway, how do you propose to fix climate change without
massive, centralized planning, including punishment of those who subvert such
a fix for personal gain?

Also, in your link, the plants are closed, not seized.

~~~
baddox
I don’t understand. Why _would_ central planning be required to fix climate
change? How about just charge greenhouse gas emitters so that there are no
longer externalities?

I don’t see any reason to turn to central planning, unless one just uses that
term to refer to any regulations involving the economy.

~~~
magnamerc
I think a lot of right wingers in North America would say that regulations
such as taxing carbon, or providing government incentives to solar or wind
farms would be considered a socialist centrally planned catastrophe. I mean,
that's what the 'Green New Deal' is all about, and apparently American right
wing nuts think that's communism.

~~~
jolfdb
The Green New Deal is a mishmash of left wing talking points, not a coherent
proposal.

------
dfilppi
Yeah, they are the chief sources of CO2, which plants are known to be quite
fond of.

------
jnmandal
Anyone has a link to read the underlying study?

~~~
dredmorbius
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7)

via: [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-
an...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-
dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows)

------
swarnie_
i think we'll see this more and more as China shifts its manufacturing over to
Africa (currently huge investments going on).

It doesn't really solve the problem, you just get to point at someone else
who's now holding the ball instead of you when it all goes up in flames.

~~~
pm90
Uh..... no.

If China/India adopt and perfect green tech and export it to Africa, fucking
awesome.

America is sadly too busy with infighting on stupid issues (Abortion, Gun
restrictions , Voting rights... all important, stupid in that there still
isn’t general consensus that these are all good ideas that should be adopted
widely ASAP) while the rest of the world moves on.

~~~
swarnie_
Any post critical of USA is universally panned on this site, careful now.

The point of my post is their not pushing green tech to Africa, they're
pushing all the dirty industries they no longer want/need to tolerate on-
shore.

~~~
pm90
And so the cycle of the industrial revolution goes, wrecking every country in
its wake ....

I agree that seems likely, but the cost effectiveness of solar tech, mass
transit etc. make me hopeful that Africa will take a different path to
economic development.

------
ixtli
For sure! I'm not saying democracy should be abandoned. I'm saying that

1) china might not actually be quite like its depicted in the west 2) what we
call authoritarian is often just counter to our ideology that people should be
able to deploy capital however they see fit with little consequence.

Anyway your point that it just takes correctly allocated capital to solve this
problem is 100% salient.

(And before anyone jumps on #2, yes, the CPC does not allow some types of
political dissent that we are allowed in public in the west and that should be
criticized. But we need to criticize it for the right reasons, as opposed to
blindly asserting that nothing horrible has ever happened due to what I would
call free speech fundamentalism.)

~~~
DataWorker
“what we call authoritarian” is rolling over protestors with tanks. That’s for
starters.

~~~
pm90
How about systemic criminalization of previously enslaved minority population
so they’re unable to make any economic gains? Disenfranchisement so they’re
unable to vote for leaders with their interests?

That sounds pretty authoritarian to me. The difference is simply that it’s
cleverly hidden from plain view.

~~~
whatshisface
I see this argument a lot in China threads, "America has already used up the
world's supply of crime, so everyone else is forced to remain innocent."
Unfortunately, bad government is not finite, every country can manufacture
their own.

~~~
pm90
I think we're in agreement.

Its ok to point out that the Chinese Government is authoritarian and does many
things that Civilized people find reprehensible.

Its ok to point out that the US Government is democratic, but with many
authoritarian tendencies, which have targeted minorities, Women etc. for a
very long time which Civilized people find reprehensible.

Its not OK to use one incident of authoritarianism as a cudgel against another
country like your own country hasn't done similar things. That is a recipe for
jingoism, nationalism and other -isms.

------
Magical
Greening from croplands, that's really unimpressive. I'll take that too
though, better than nothing.

