China Reassigns 60,000 Soldiers To Plant Trees In Bid To Fight Pollution

According to The Independent, citing the Asia Times, China has reassigned over 60,000 soldiers to plan trees in a bid to combat pollution by increasing the country's forest coverage. The soldiers are from the People's Liberation Army, along with some of the nation's armed police force. From the report: The majority will be dispatched to Hebei province, which encircles Beijing. The area is known to be a major culprit for producing the notorious smog which blankets the capital city. The idea is believed to be popular among members of online military forums as long as they can keep their ranks and entitlements. It comes as part of China's plan to plant at least 84,000 square kilometers (32,400 square miles) of trees by the end of the year, which is roughly equivalent to the size of Ireland. The aim is to increase the country's forest coverage from 21 per cent of its total landmass to 23 per cent by 2020, the China Daily newspaper reported.

Comments

China has also announced who will manufacture...

[arglebargle_xiv]

... the trees: Zhongshan Tandem Plastic Products Co., Ltd, Yuhuan Xushi Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, and Ruian Jinda Plastic Machinery Co., Ltd.

Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Although this will probably only make a minor difference.

Re:Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[ravenshrike]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

More than you might think, but China's problem is so bad that it's still like trying to empty a sandbox on a beach one grain at a time.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[peragrin]

The USA used to be that bad. Then we made the EPA, and spent the next 40 years cleaning Stopping at pollution at the various sources, gave us a chance to clean up.

China knows this, they just don't realize the best way is to clean up your act, not patch symptons.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[The Evil Atheist]

And the US is willing to forget that lesson bit by bit.

Re:Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Barsteward]

a lot of "minor differences" makes a "bigger difference" - silver bullets are rarely the answer or available

Re:Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[AmiMoJo]

China is also capable of making massive changes very rapidly. Like replacing all the busses in a major city with electric ones in just a couple of years.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Opportunist]

Not bit by bit but with a big bang

MAGA!

Re:Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Opportunist]

So ... Soylent Green isn't people?

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[zifn4b]

The USA used to be that bad. Then we made the EPA, and spent the next 40 years cleaning

I'm glad someone on Slashdot finally admitted that the USA has improved in this regard instead of everyone trying to make it out like the United States is the worst of the pollution offenders. It's China, hands down. Evidence that the USA has improved dramatically over the past 20 years. I'm surprised you didn't get modded down making this factual claim.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[thegarbz]

they just don't realize the best way is to clean up your act

A statement born from ignorance of just what China is doing. I mean you don't need to look far. We've covered on Slashdot plenty of times the crackdown on corruption, shuttering of polluting factories, adoption of green energy, decommissioning of coal, restrictions on vehicles in cities.

The only real difference is that what took the USA 100 years will likely take China 50.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Max_W]

EPAs do not reduce the CO2, carbon dioxide, emissions. The carbon in the fossil fuel burns and produces the CO2. No way around it due to Newton's second law of motion: F=m*a. As long as a car has got a mass (weight) and it accelerates (drives), it requires a force (fuel).

In other words the net force is equated to the product of the mass times the acceleration.

Planting trees on the contrary reduces CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most dangerous pollutant as it is impossible to reduce it in principle while burning fossil or even bio fuel. One car produces during one day about the same quantity of the CO2, which one tree consumes during one year. So we need a lot of additional trees.

There are jobs which are to be done. No matter how. And this is it. I would only advise to use not only spades and shovels, but also some mechanization.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, absolute values, yes. Per-capita values, it's still 2× the amount that China pollutes, from the wikipedia page that you linked.

Even more, if you sort by per-capita, USA is 7th place, the first real large polluter (~14%) behind small countries (up to 1.5%). So yes, USA still has a long way to go *per-capita*.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[joao.cordeiro]

I wish I had mod points because the guy above just got burned!

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[The Grim Reefer]

The only real difference is that what took the USA 100 years will likely take China 50.

It's a little easier to do something when you aren't the first to do it. China was able to ramp up to an incredibly industrialized country in an extremely short period of time. But when it's known for a fact that it can be done and can buy, copy and steal the technology from those who did it first, it's also incredibly easier.

The US took a very long time in comparison to get to that point. It also took much longer to create realize/admit the causes and the solutions to acid rain, pollution, rivers catching on fire, etc. China has obviously learned from the mistakes of the EU and the US. They also don't have to worry as much about things like property rights. As long as they don't push things to the point of a major revolt, they can pretty much do what is best without having to worry about going to court to reallocate land. If your village of 3000 people are where a new forest has to be, then tough shit, you're moving. In the US, one person can halt a project indefinitely, or certainly delay it for a decade or more at the very least.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, absolute values, yes. Per-capita values, it's still 2× the amount that China pollutes, from the wikipedia page that you linked.

I wish I had mod points because the guy above just got burned!

No he didn't. Absolute values is what really matters when it comes to pollution.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[AmiMoJo]

You seem to be confusing two different statistics. Overall China is worse, but then China has many more people than the US. If you look at per-capita rates then China is quite far down the list, way below the US, Australia, Japan and multiple European countries.

The claim that the US is one of the worst per-capita is true. In fact apart from some under-developed and middle eastern oil producing countries the only one that is worse is Australia.

Re:Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Max_W]

Nonsense! 99.99% of the trees will be chopped down and used for firewood for heating and cooking, so they won't have a chance to die and decompose. Stuff tastes better when cooked on an open fire. And a an open fireplace is much more pleasant than heat from a radiator.

It is what probably happened in Ancient Egypt. The woods were over-exploited and finally disappeared. It would be very hard to reintroduce.

By the way, it is the same in jungles. If the trees are cut completely, the land does not turn back into jungles by itself. So it make sense to plant trees and protect the forests.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Jodka]

If you look at per-capita rates then China is quite far down the list, way below the US, Australia, Japan and multiple European countries.

The claim that the US is one of the worst per-capita is true.

Per-capita pollution is the wrong way to measure environmental impact because it makes poverty a virtue; We do not want to eliminate production, we want cleaner production.

A better way to measure environmental impact is not pollution per-capita, but pollution per unit of production.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Barsteward]

it is the best way to measure otherwise you abdicate your personal responsibility to make changes and not be so wasteful and expect everyone else to change

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Dan East]

What does the per-capita rate have to do with anything globally though? That is simply saying a country is allowed to damage the global environment more just because it has more people. Instead, shouldn't we be looking at the pollution a country generates relative to its land area? Because land area is finite, and is at a static ratio to our planet's atmosphere, water volume, etc. The US and China's land area is within 2% of one another (US is around 2.5% larger area). So based on that concept, China should produce around 2.5% less pollution than the USA.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Solandri]

There are two types of pollution we're dealing with here. Particulates and CO2.

• Regulation like the EPA is effective at dealing with particulate pollution. Planting trees only helps here a little - particulates settle on the leaves, and are washed to the ground when it rains, if it doesn't kill the trees (acid rain).
• Regulation does nothing for CO2 pollution (short of banning the burning of fossil fuels). Trees reverse CO2 production entirely, converting the CO2 back into a hydrocarbon. So China's strategy is more effective at this.

While the EPA helps reduce particulate pollution, unfortunately it also impedes the easiest method of carbon sequestration: Cutting down trees and burying them underground, sprinkling some desiccant on top of them to prevent decomposition, then planting new trees to replace them. So instead we're left investigating active methods of carbon sequestration (where we have to pay the energy cost of converting the CO2 into something else, which defeats the whole point of having burned the original hydrocarbon in the first place). Why do we have to develop a new method of carbon sequestration, when there's already an organism which already does exactly that. Trees and plants use energy from sunlight to convert atmospheric CO2 back into hydrocarbons, and it doesn't cost us a dime. All we have to do is plant lots of trees, let them do their thing, cut them down and bury them, then plant new trees.

People seem to get that burning fossil fuels is a problem because it's taking carbon which has been locked underground for millions of years, and releasing it into the air as CO2. But they seem to have blinders on to the idea that the obvious way to reverse it is to take something which removes that CO2 from the atmosphere (trees) and bury them back underground.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[haruchai]

Uh, absolute values, yes. Per-capita values, it's still 2× the amount that China pollutes, from the wikipedia page that you linked.

Even more, if you sort by per-capita, USA is 7th place, the first real large polluter (~14%) behind small countries (up to 1.5%). So yes, USA still has a long way to go *per-capita*.

At some point in the past several decades, "pollution" became synonymous with CO2 emissions or GHG emissions.
While they may go together in most cases, they're not inextricably linked. It's very possible to have a country with high CO2 emissions that has terrific environmental stewardship - and the reverse is also true.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Uberbah]

By that line of "reasoning", the Vatican, population 1,000, should be able to pollute just as much as China, population 1.4 billion. Because they're both sovereign nations. Of course per capita matters, check your arrogance and sense of western exceptionalist entitlement.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Uberbah]

Per-capita pollution is the wrong way to measure environmental impact, because my arrogant western exceptionalist ass wants to go on consuming dozens the times the amount of resources as people in other countries

FTFY

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[djinn6]

Instead, shouldn't we be looking at the pollution a country generates relative to its land area?

No. That's a terrible idea. Island nations won't be able to have any industry and Russia and Canada will get a free pass.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[haruchai]

"China has obviously learned from the mistakes of the EU and the US"
You're obviously wrong. If they had, they would never have made such a mess of their environment in the first place.
Air pollution ALONE may have taken more than a million lives. Perhaps that seems trivial in a country of well over a billion people but it's 1/2 the number of people in their standing army

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[thegarbz]

You're obviously wrong. If they had, they would never have made such a mess of their environment in the first place.

That's a non-sequitur argument. Just because they follow the same path doesn't mean they haven't learnt from the mistakes of the USA.

It's not just that they killed a "trivial" number of people, but in doing so became one of the world's greatest superpowers. What they seem to have learnt is that resting on laurels of the environment after becoming a superpower doesn't help your cause. Expect China to become even more dominant as a major power / developer of environmental technologies in the future.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[thegarbz]

Per-capita pollution is the wrong way to measure environmental impact because it makes poverty a virtue

The environment doesn't care how rich you are.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Waffle Iron]

Trees don't really reduce CO2 in the long term. When they die, they rot and most of the CO2 they captured is released back into the atmosphere. Mature forests are generally carbon neutral.

Long term carbon sequestration is a very slow process mostly driven by dead algae dropping into ocean sediments. It's better to avoid releasing fossilized carbon in the first place.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[AmiMoJo]

Per capita emissions is an important metric because China is industrialising, and it's vital that they don't reach western levels.

Your claim that it makes poverty a virtue is unfounded. Lots of countries have comparable or better quality of life than the US, but much lower emissions.

Total emissions are meaningless because clearly Belgium wouldn't get near the US total no matter how bad it was, and the US will not get close to China that has 4x the population.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[The Grim Reefer]

Air pollution ALONE may have taken more than a million lives. Perhaps that seems trivial in a country of well over a billion people but it's 1/2 the number of people in their standing army

If we look at the population of China at 1.379 billion people vs. the US in 1970, the year the EPA was founded, at 205.1 million the equivalent percentage of the US population in comparison to your 1 million would be 148,730.

According to this publication from MIT, There are an estimated 200K deaths per year in the US that are caused by air pollution.

Even if we go with the same year to look at the population, The US is at 323.1million. The equivalent number of today population would be 234,300. Damn near that many people die per year from air pollution in the US. Hell, in a little over 4 1/4 years, a million people die in the US from air pollution. I'd say they've certainly learned their lesson much faster than the US had, or has for that matter. The EPA was founded 48 years ago and The percentage of US residents that die from air pollution isn't that much better than China is today.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Dan East]

Didn't you read what I wrote? Are you saying that the land area of the Vatican is equal to the land area of China? Because based on what I said, that is what it would take for the Vatican to be able to pollute as much as China.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[kenai_alpenglow]

They do if you use the wood from said trees....

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[david_thornley]

Why in proportion to land area? If China were to annex Siberia, then, it would be doing far better in CO2 emissions?

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[david_thornley]

Net force is mass times acceleration plus drag. My car will spend about 3 gallons to go 100 miles at constant speed on a freeway, and it won't spend much at all accelerating to freeway speed. Drag dominates.

Of course, cars don't have to run on fossil fuel. Biofuels are carbon-neutral, since the CO2 comes from the air, into the plants, into the fuel, and then back into the air. Electric cars can run on any electricity source.

Trees temporarily sequester carbon, but if you want it to be permanent you have to do something with the tree to prevent it from rotting.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[david_thornley]

The question is how effective that method is. How long does it take to remove a ton of carbon dioxide from the air, and how many places do we have to bury dessicated trees where they won't eventually rot?

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[haruchai]

That's a non-sequitur argument. Just because they follow the same path doesn't mean they haven't learnt from the mistakes of the USA.

It's not just that they killed a "trivial" number of people, but in doing so became one of the world's greatest superpowers. What they seem to have learnt is that resting on laurels of the environment after becoming a superpower doesn't help your cause.

Following the same path is one thing but they made ALL the same mistakes - and worse - as the West in a fraction of the time.
Now they're finding out that cleaning up isn't so easy. They do have the advantage of absolute authoritarianism but so did the Soviet Union - remember them?

Expect China to become even more dominant as a major power / developer of environmental technologies in the future

I fully expect them to try but again, no easy feat especially since it's been apparent for some time that their financial system is a tightly controlled house of cards that cannot and will not hold up forever.
When the eventual correction comes, I expect a serious amount of unrest. Whether it's enough to topple the status quo is an open question.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Uberbah]

This cartoon neatly addresses that line of capitalist dumbfuckery.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Uberbah]

Are you saying that the land area of the Vatican is equal to the land area of China? Because based on what I said, that is what it would take for the Vatican to be able to pollute as much as China.

Don't you get that's an equally fallacious comparison? By that line of logical fallacy, California should be held to tighter emissions standards than Alaska, because the latter is a larger state geographically.

It's per capita, period. Yes, this means China gets to pollute 5 times as much as the United States, when they have 5 times the population.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[zifn4b]

Uh, absolute values, yes. Per-capita values, it's still 2× the amount that China pollutes, from the wikipedia page that you linked.

The Earth doesn't give two shits about per capita, it cares about total pollution. Try again if you really care about the planet.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Uberbah]

You think China cares about the best interest of the world? Russia too? Your hippie idealism is adorable. Let me know where your emerald forest is filled with fairies and unicorns, I'd like to live there too.

I see you went with a non-response, red herring & non sequitur sandwich for lunch today.

Re: Probably the sanest use of soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

There's plenty of things that are bad about China, not making an effort to clean up and prevent further polution hasn't been one of them since 2012/2013, when they got serious about polution...

China has :
- now built more solar and wind power then the rest of the world combined (and they keep adding more at incredible rate)
- they've made masive efforts to clean up transportation by:
    * build high-speed rail (about 2/3ths of the high speed rail lines in the world are now in china)
    * they've been electrifying their busses at a rate of nearly 30k busses/year
    * they're actively working on electrifying their internal shipping
    * they've mandated a switch to electric for cars, despite heavy lobbying of all car manufacturers except tesla
- they've been cleaning up their factories
- and yes they're planting trees

AFAICT they're currently attacking both symptoms AND causes, it's just gonna take them a while to clean up their act
quite frankly at the moment china is doing more for a clean and green future then the rest of the world combined,
to be fair they surely needed to as they where one of the worst places on the planet

where are the tree coming from

[zaax]

It takes a few years to grow even a 1 metre tree, so where are they moving them from?

Re: How's the tree "planning" going then?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that proofread is one word right? https://www.google.com/search?q=proofread&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Planting trees does not solve the problem

[OricAtmos48K]

Burning fossil fuels can not be reversed by planting trees. Almost 99.99% of those trees will die in 60 years and decompose while releasing their co2 content back to the atmosphere, a small percentage will be covered by soil, water and decompose slowly for future oil and coal. Resistance by trees is futile, only solution is to reduce burning of fossil fuels.

Re:Planting trees does not solve the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the idea is to maintain actual forests where new trees grow to store the CO2 released by those dying.

Re:Planting trees does not solve the problem

[rkordmaa]

Ireland load of trees does however filter out a bunch of smog, which is kind of the main point. Also more than 1 part in 10000 of carbon in plantmass gets captured in soil. Does it solve the CO2 problem, no, not really. But it does improve air quality, enrich soil and is altogether better use of land than leaving it as wasteland. Go plant a tree, it doesn't fix the world, but it does do quite a bit of good, effort to payoff ratio is pretty damn good.

Re:Planting trees does not solve the problem

[Barsteward]

they have to do something to help in any small way until they can stop burning of fossil fuels. In 60 years time the fossil burners days may be long gone.

Re:Planting trees does not solve the problem

[Opportunist]

Well, with a hint of luck, in 60 years the days of us fossil burners may be numbered...

Re:Planting trees does not solve the problem

[Max_W]

It were the plants in the first place which created oxygen on our planet. Actually trees do not need oxygen. It is kind of toxic for them, but they adjusted.
br There are even plans to make Mars livable by introducing photosynthesis.

With the green end up !

[Laxator2]

Sorry, I could not resist mentioning this one.

Re:China has also announced who will manufacture..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm my first hand experience, planting trees in China does indeed mean moving full grown trees, they don't like waiting for stuff... who knows where they come from.

For all the whiners

[quonset]

For those who whine what a waste this will be, how it's doomed to failure, WHERE WILL THEY GET THE TREES???, one only need look at what one man can do.

Yes, he's been doing it for 37 years, but to accomplish this little bit of restoration, singlehandedly, leaves little doubt what a literal army of people can do, if this is done correctly.

Re:For all the whiners

[RazorSharp]

Another great example is Wayne National Forest in Ohio. Southeastern Ohio was completely destroyed by coal mining in the early twentieth century, and when the coal ran out the economy was left just as devastated as the land. FDR made the land a national forest as one of his New Deal plans, and bought the land off any residents who would sell, and hired those who stayed to plant trees. Today, only eighty some years later, the place looks like it been a forest for hundreds of years (and it's been this way for several decades).

It doesn't take long for mother nature to thrive, given a chance. If the Chinese remain committed to turning their environmental situation around, they certainly could. The commitment is the problem. Unfortunately, Wayne has been leased out by the federal government for fracking. Fortunately, Wayne has shown the ability to rebound from worse.

Re:It's a great idea

[Barsteward]

i'm positive this scenario completely escaped them, you'd better get on the phone and warn them and sharpish

Febreze on taco diarrhea

[XSportSeeker]

I guess it's something for soldiers to do, and planting trees is certainly better than nothing, but if anyone thinks this will have any major effect to combat smog, they'll be sorely disappointed...
What Beijing needs are the harsh but necessary measures. Industry regulation. Vehicle inspection. Changing policies to incentivize usage of public transportation and alternative transportation usages. Infrastructure investments towards that goal.
Trees are great and all, but they don't do magic. Specially in the case of Beijing smog... more likely that it'll kill or stunt growth of trees rather than trees having any significant effect.

Re:Febreze on taco diarrhea

[v1]

Of course they need to STOP making pollution, but reforesting their land will also help. There's no reason to berate them for not doing everything at once. Managing a country is all about tradeoffs. They traded their air manpower and quality for product exports and economic standing in the world. Now they're investing some more of that manpower in their environment. Granted, they should have been thinking a bit ahead on this, since it takes time to come to fruition, but at least they're trying.

I personally think this is an outstanding way for them to flex their manpower muscle. One of China's biggest strengths is their sheer numbers combined with their communist government, which is the most efficient way to weild manpower. It has its drawbacks of course, as does any other system, but communism really can get things done fast and at large scale like nothing else. I'd like to see this project quadruple in size in the next year or two. They have the ability to build up momentum fast, and by 2020 they may be at five times the headcount in this project, and only accelerating their efforts. You get that kind of momentum, and even in a project this large with a long return-time, you start to make a serious dent even in a problem that at first appeared "impractically large to tackle".

I think it's still going to be awhile before they start working on the other end of the problem. (the production of pollution) They're still a bit high on the economic returns it's gotten them so far, and I'm sure they're thinking "just a little more, a little more, then we'll start cutting back..." But I think their time is limited, as their population is seeing through their propaganda that's been hard at work downplaying the issue. When everyone in your city is forced to wear masks and set up elaborate air filters in their house, you just can't shovel that much dirt under the rug anymore. And this initial push to tackle part of the problem should be a fairly effective PR stunt at home, chipping away at the idea that the government isn't doing anything about the problem. (which is basically how everyone in any city in China feels right now) Although some will view this as the only reason they're doing it, I think it's a combination of being their original reason and also something more than a token-effort to tackle the problem. But I expect them to get real tangible benefits from their reforestation efforts.

Hopefully they throw a lot more weight behind this project, they could easily become a world-leader in reforestation. (look around the world... who else is even trying at this level right now? nobody)

Re:Febreze on taco diarrhea

[hattable]

Definitely not trying to give China a free pass here, but in the large cities, they have implemented laws which enforce automobile pulsing. License plates ending in 2 can't be on the road Monday or Thursday, ending in 6 means you are not allowed to drive Wednesday Friday, and so on. They certainly do not deserve an A, but maybe a little credit for hitting step one and admitting there is a problem.

Re:Febreze on taco diarrhea

[dunkelfalke]

Trees stop wind. Hence stop soil erosion that becomes dust. Smog is not the only air pollutant.

Re:60000 times 1 lb of poop = ?

[rkordmaa]

Fertilizer for the forest

Re:It's a great idea

[gsslay]

My god! You're right! We must cut down all trees within a mile of anyone! Otherwise they'll only get burned down!

We also need to have some kind of method of restraining domestic animals. Something that fences them in, or maybe out. Come on, if we put our heads together I'm sure we could invent something to do this.

Good job our superior western intelligence has realised these things, and we don't follow these foolish Chinese in their futile efforts.

Doom and Gloom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the comments here are negatively charged and full of political crap.

Why am I under the impression that everyone here wishes to express their opinions on how to change the world from the comfort of their smartphone or computer rather than actually going out and doing something similar?

The effort is incredible and should they accomplish this, this will be a step in the right direction for mankind. More people should applaud this effort and consider doing the same. If this sets the example, more people should be encouraged to do the same.

If everyone planted a tree for every post they did, you would then be able to be at the level of commitment that the PLA and armed police force. Only then you would have the right to comment, and hopefully the mindset of the posts would be more positive as well.

Re:Doom and Gloom?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right. There are also other ways to ensure the air quality improves, for example World's Largest Air Purifier in Xian, China in which technology can improve life for everyone. Article mentions it's not perfect but that's what a trial run is for right?

The idea where the trees can benefit would be nature itself. By creating a forest, you also create a habitat for a slew of organisms that will take up residence in the forests. With natural habitats always being constantly taken over by human activity, the idea that this has more added benefits than just cleaning up air, incidentally something no one here has mentioned.

Re:Doom and Gloom?

[philmarcracken]

Because I understand the science. If I'm the fugitive gas, CO2, and I get caught by a tree and held, it is temporary. The tree will fully mature, stop adding carbon to its body, start getting eaten by bacteria or termites and then I'm cut loose again. Thats not sequestration.

Iron fertilization of the ocean to grow phytoplankton is a far better use of their time.

Re:China has also announced who will manufacture..

[fisted]

Can't come from China if it's supposed to increased the forest-covered area from 21% to 23%

Re: How's the tree "planning" going then?

[fisted]

proofread

typed on my Android device.

Millions of Single Men...

[sycodon]

...with no prospect of marriage or even a girl friend due to their propensity to abort girls resulting in an imbalance of over 33 million more men than women.

You have to find something to occupy their time.

Re: Millions of Single Men...

[psycho12345]

The gender imbalance is already there and locked in. They can't suddenly start producing families with 5+ daughters. It will take decades to reverse the problem as demographics waves move through.

Re: Millions of Single Men...

[Oswald McWeany]

The one child policy has been abolished... do you live in a cave?

That would only help in the short-term if women were able to give birth to 18-year old girls to copulate with the 18-year old boys who were born during the one child policy.

Re: Millions of Single Men...

[lsatenstein]

A uninformed stupid post. Bravo to what the Chinese are doing. It will work. As an example of a similar program, Israel was predominantly desert. A 50 year tree planting program recovered more than 50 percent of land from desert to agriculture and to establish towns where before, none existed.

Re:China has also announced who will manufacture..

[jfdavis668]

In other news, 60,000 PLA soldiers have just crossed the Vietnam border...

Sounds like the CCC...

[XxtraLarGe]

Where I grew up, there are several areas where the CCC planted trees. You can tell they were planted and not naturally occurring, because they are all lined up in perfect rows and columns. Unfortunately, they planted white pine trees by the millions. Hopefully China will learn from this example and plant less volatile specimens.

Re: China has also announced who will manufacture.

[joao.cordeiro]

Growing actually depends on the condition.
If there is good sunlight and good dirt it will grow realized fast.
So they will probably contract companies to grow the trees to a decent size, really really fast. Then they will plant them

4,000 deaths per day...

[Kant]

Air pollution in China is killing 4,000 people every day, a study found in 2015.
60,000 soldiers means two weeks of deaths.
A wise move, even if quite late, you'd say.

"members of online military forums"

[denzacar]

...cited in the article apparently never did a day of public service, let alone military service.

If they did, they'd understand the concepts of serving the public good as well as of using military staff and resources in response to natural disasters and in providing humanitarian aid.

Re:"members of online military forums"

[gmack]

Indeed. When I was much younger, I lived on an army base with my parents. The base was essentially given to the military during Word War One the because it was an unusable dust bowl. By the time I was there, the place was mostly forest (replanted, most of the trees were in perfectly straight rows), but every year the Army and schools had a tree planting event where everyone spent a couple of days planting trees in some of the still sandy areas.

The Army's job is to do whatever needs doing.

Re:China has also announced who will manufacture..

[magarity]

Can't come from China if it's supposed to increased the forest-covered area from 21% to 23%

Don't have much experience with official Chinese government issued statistics, do you?

Re:China has also announced who will manufacture..

[fisted]

According to my sources, 90% of those statistics are, in fact, correct, while the other 25% are explained through human error and inaccurate base data.

Watch the Albedo...

[Junta]

While having many more carbon sinks is good and all, it can be bad if high albedo areas become forest, as that will contribute to warming.

Your Bullshit

[Uberbah]

The size of the country does not matter.

Then the Vatican, pop 1,000, should be able to pollute just as much as China, 1.4 billion. Now, DO explain why you should be able to pollute as much as FIVE people in China.

Re:60000 times 1 lb of poop = ?

[Oswald McWeany]

Human waste makes extremely poor fertilizer.

Good enough to grow potatoes on mars. Elon Musk should launch human feces to Mars next.

Re:China has also announced who will manufacture..

[Oswald McWeany]

Can't come from China if it's supposed to increased the forest-covered area from 21% to 23%

I'm sure they will be grown from saplings... but technically it could come from current Chinese forests if they thinned out the existing forests. If they moved one in five trees from an existing forest and replanted it in a new forest- technically the forest-covered area would increase even though it were the same number of trees.

Cool!

[pubwvj]

Cool, literally, since trees help to cool the region by respirating and shading the soil which retails water, soil and nutrients. More over, if they plant good choices of species they can harvest these trees in 20 to 50 years creating a sustainable forestry project that will give them tons, literally, of wood. Harvesting the wood will boost the CO2 sequestering since older trees grow more slowly soaking up less CO2 per hectacre.

More power to them.

Then you're right back to per capita rates

[Uberbah]

If the goal is to reduce pollution then the opposite is the better way to go- have one Chinese person pollute as much as one Vatican.

So close yet still so far.