The general approach changes at least here. The largest difference is relatively smaller density of dead wood in the forests, which is important and still not fully understood habitat.
Also a lot of the forest mass that gets cut is used for "green energy" so it's worse than letting it stay in the forest. Basically in a periodically burnt (bioenergy) forest the carbon is kept in the atmosphere most of the time while in an old growth forest it's in the trunks all the time.
I grew up in NH and there is far more forest there now than there was at the turn of the century. I remember going on a hike with my father and frequently running into stone walls and old pastures at least several hours' hike from the nearest roads.
>China has been conducting what the United Nations has said is the world’s largest tree planting crusade, which increased its forest coverage from 8.6 per cent in 1949 to 21.7 per cent last year.
>By March this year, the total area covered by China’s artificial forests reached 69.3 million hectares, larger than the size of France, according to the State Forestry Administration.
I'm not sure what the long term effects of such a widespread forest monoculture with no plant competition will result in.
Hopefully they have thought through the problem well enough that they don't run into anything major, but putting in the same trees that were there is logically the least dangerous.
In BC Canada, the government required replanting on forest licensed crown land HAS to be a representative mix of seeds gathered from that forest, and its for a reason.
They said it was freak accident that happens every few hundred years. Well there was another one few years after, and few other smaller ones since then.
Now its largely left on its own as being national park with highest protection level, but this has some (hopefully relatively short term) negative effects - population of bugs eating trees exploded and they are destroying remaining trees.
Monocultures sucks, we should know better.
Whole swaths of forest razed, a tree monoculture planted after WWI in remembrance of the battles and the destruction fought in that quadrant of the Apls.
My weak Slovak makes it hard for me to research facts, so I tend to rely on my wife; but I understand that unfortunately the parkland is not "left on its own".
The state fells a lot of timber in the parks. They use the borers as an excuse, but cut down more than they need to control them.
There's yet another sad story for forests among the negative externalities from the transition from socialism. There were and still are large areas of land divided up and owned by general public, which has a legacy today, see .
One opportunist where I live went and bought as many of these as he could, often cheaply off old people and made bank by letting people come and fell the forest on them. You can see it all around here - big swathes of bare earth cut through forested hills/mountains with no regard to sustainability. It really upsets me.
Yes some crooks were/are using this to cut more (healthy) trees, ie having permit for 10 but cutting down 100 trees. Then there are large parts of still standing forest which completely died out due to overpopulation of tree eating bugs (which happened due to dead wood not being removed). Most of this happening in highly protected park.
Law enforcement is pretty bad back home (read - cops are often beyond useless and corrupt), with general public viewing such thievery as semi-acceptable. One of many reasons I moved out, no matter how nice the nice parts are, the bad ones are plenty and sour the whole experience.
> Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.
And there isn't enough biodiversity to balance damage done elsewhere:
> The researchers point out that the gain in greenness seen around the world and dominated by India and China does not offset the damage from loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions, such as Brazil and Indonesia. The consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems remain.
I wonder how these reforestations efforts in India and China compare in absolute numbers to the "trillion" figure cited in the study.
I'm a bit surprised to see the greening in the Rockies, and in North America in general given the devastation that the bark beetle has caused over the last 20 years. But it's nice to read that some trends are in the right direction.
“We can’t let CHINA beat US on reforestation!”
Might be the trick
> China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.
I wonder if there are plans to redirect any funds spent on recycling and eco-conscious consumption in developed countries towards better collection of plastic waste in developing countries.
USA's trash goes to landfills, from where only a tiny part of it can accidentally get into the water. Other places just dump trash into the water.
(And yes, "slightly" is 40 million people, more than the population of California.)
Population-wise China is the largest, but India is not that far behind.
Also definitely not per capita.
China: 183,000 million tons C02
US: 234,000 million tons C02
That's a 1.28x more for the US. Since industrialization in the US started well before 1971 (you can infer this from the graph), this is significant underestimate.
Obviously, the other important estimate is per capita emissions, which would be even lower for China than the 1.28x estimate above.
The rule of 70 is useful; divide 70 by growth rate in percent tobget doubling time in years.
US carbon emissions have been roughly flat, and falling most years since 2005, likely from natgas substitution for coal in electricity generation, though total petroleum use has also fallen:
Too: total energy in the US as of the 1970s was doubling roughly every 20 years (3.5% annual growth), meaning that "all prior history" doesn't matter to much -- half of all emissions had occurred 1950-1970 (very roughly, from memory). Similarly, as coal use was rampling up in the 1860s, contemporary writers noted that a fraction of known reserves would satisfy US energy needs for a million years ... at then-current levels of consumption. What happened, of course, is that low-cost energy spurred growth and coal use exploded. Current reserves as estimated by BP's annual statistical review are closer to 300 years, a reduction in time of over 3,000-fold.
Henry Erni (1865): https://archive.org/details/coaloilpetroleum00erni/page/14
China's emissions were projected to rise 5% in 2018, by one source, a doubling in 15 years.
There's much more to the picture, including equity, offshoring pollution, and history. bBut a simple integration over past use alone is very incomplete.
Lol about it being crops and not trees, what a crap article.
I agree with the fact that China and India need to focus on their emissions, but it seems ridiculously convenient for someone from a western country to ask a couple billion people to reduce their emissions while they themselves will find every opportunity to reduce their own accountability.
FYI - A US per capita emission is almost 20 times more than that of India. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Environment/...
In all likelihood the human race will be killed by computers (hacked, robotics, software errors, hardware failures, and so on and so on.. pick one), and Not climate change. Just sayin.
Sounds like a cool premise for a novel, but something fanciful to the extreme.
True, I did not run a probability study; however if one looks at the control that computers have on every facet of your existence and how often they fail--I'm pretty the odds would scare the fuck out of you.
> Not to mention there was nearly modern civilization before electronics were invented that we could fall back to.
You going down to the stream to fetch water when it no longer flows from your faucet?
> like every single piece of critical hardware in all major cities would somehow have to fail
Viruses could do it. People panic. Could you live a week without food or power? Please, I remember when Hurricane Sandy hit here in NY... it would not take much to turn society on its ear. Of course, I'm sure your right--after all Y2K never happened, and I mean who could foresee in 1983 that the future would actually be here in 17 LONG, LONG years.
What is truly new, is that human activity in India and China alone is responsable of a 16% increase of leaf area. So, to quote original article:
> now that we know direct human influence is a key driver of the greening Earth, we need to factor this into our climate models
"Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. "
The greening is also observed in areas unaffected by man's agricultural activities.
>The researchers point out that the gain in greenness seen around the world and dominated by India and China does not offset the damage from loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions, such as Brazil and Indonesia. The consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems remain.
Thinking that China and India have "got this" would be a catastrophic assumption (obligatory xkcd).
 - https://xkcd.com/1732/