Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China and India Lead the Way in Greening (nasa.gov)

Posted by msmash on from the marching-forward dept.

hackingbear writes: The world is literally a greener place than it was twenty years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage. A new study shows that China and India -- the world's most populous countries -- are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries. Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues first detected the greening phenomenon in satellite data from the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was a chief cause. The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China. "China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9 percent of the planet's land area covered in vegetation," said lead author Chi Chen of Boston University. "That is a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation." China's outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part from its programs to conserve and expand forests (about 42 percent of the greening contribution). These programs were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution, and climate change.

59 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Meh, big deal... by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Funny

    USA leads in climate change denial. Take that, nature!

    1. Re:Meh, big deal... by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Greening" by creating forests where previously there were none counts as a form of climate change too.

      While green forests are cool, are there concerns for the previous non-forest ecosystems that were there?

    2. Re:Meh, big deal... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      USA leads in climate change denial.

      Maybe instead of building a wall along the border with Mexico, we should be planting trees along it?

      I mean, not normal trees, but Normandy-like hedgerows that were impassable by the US troops in WWII. They needed to mount tusk-like diggers on Sherman tanks to get through.

      It would keep folks from sneaking across the border illegally, and be Green, as well.

      . . . unless the border crashers get their hands on some Sherman tanks.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Meh, big deal... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      USA leads in climate change denial.

      No we don't We actually do most of the science that is proving it is a issue. If it wasn't for NASA research in Antarctica and from space we wouldn't never have known about the Ozone issue with CFC till it was to late. It is only small, but loud, minority that denies the issue.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:Meh, big deal... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Nobody denies that the climate is changing. Only the foolishness that is being proposed as solutions.

      Oh - and little things such as the non-falsifiable claims.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    5. Re:Meh, big deal... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      If you look at states like NH there are far more trees now then when it was farm land in the early 20th C.

      There are far more trees in NA today then there were in 1900.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    6. Re:Meh, big deal... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the climate supports it, that would be a good idea. Problems include growing a hedgerow being labour intensive as you have to partially cut the stems and weave them together, but you could hire illegals and taking a while to grow.
      Besides the traditional Hawthorne, you could plant a Barberry or Pyracantha hedge. I knew someone with a Barberry one, it was impassible without a chainsaw and even with, those 2 inch needle sharp thorns were horrible, go right through most shoes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:Meh, big deal... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Trees get addicted to drugs and end up in Narcotics Anonymous? Well I guess you do learn something every day.

    8. Re:Meh, big deal... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      /Sarcasm This is "congress" we're talking about -- the "opposite" of progress. =P

    9. Re:Meh, big deal... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Probably not too challenging when the native forests were clear cut by invading colonists in the few centuries before that.

    10. Re:Meh, big deal... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Won't someone think of the sand!

    11. Re:Meh, big deal... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Invading colonists?

      Like the invading Han Chinese? Or the invading Persians?

      the history of humanity, up to early modern times (roughly 1500 CE), was one of conflict between semi-nomadic people and civilized peoples (those living in cities with agriculture) .

      Our history books may focus on the conflict between settled peoples but the primary change was whenever agricultural peoples came across lands held by semi-nomadic people. The agricultural (civilized) peoples considered this to be unsettled, unclaimed land.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    12. Re:Meh, big deal... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Like the invading Han Chinese? Or the invading Persians?

      Like how many of those were running around New Hampshire? You know, the state you were talking about.

      Our history books may focus on the conflict between settled peoples but the primary change was whenever agricultural peoples came across lands held by semi-nomadic people. The agricultural (civilized) peoples considered this to be unsettled, unclaimed land.

      A very Europcentric view of history. Most of the planet was just fine until Europeans invented the greatest crime against humanity, colonialism. Western Europeans, specifically.

  2. China's dependent on the US for their food supply by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine that sits well with them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  3. The US is way behind .. by satsuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's like everywhere else has recognized that the cost of deploying renewables are now cheaper than their equivalent fossil fuels counterparts.

    It makes more economic sense to be green than it does to be dirty...

    The article is about literal greening of areas of course, but the underlying reason is similar.

    1. Re:The US is way behind .. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      That is NOT true.
      Until this year, America's emissions has gone down EACH YEAR. However, it did go up 3% this year. Yeah, China went up 4-7% (more likely 7-9, but whose counting).
      The good news is that ours went up due to the economy, combined with our push for nat gas power plants unstead of nukes. We NEED to quit that and instead, push for SMRs like NuScale.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:The US is way behind .. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out to somebody else below, America, like most of the west, has gone down every year for the last 10, until this year.
      China has grown every year ( or flattened for a couple of years ), for the last 30+ years.
      And you think that planting a few trees is helping? Hmmm.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:The US is way behind .. by dryeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, we reached peak per capita CO2 production with nowhere to go but down while China and especially India are still relatively low per capita.
      The real problem is how much CO2 we produce compared to the Vatican if we're going to compare countries without considering size or population.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:The US is way behind .. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      So people with jobs other than hipster programmer cant be here? Sorry, I thought this site was for nerds.

    5. Re:The US is way behind .. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out to somebody else below, America, like most of the west, has gone down every year for the last 10, until this year. China has grown every year ( or flattened for a couple of years ), for the last 30+ years.

      And as needed to be pointed out in return: China + India have about seven times the population of the United States. That means that they get to pollute seven times as much. As someone else pointed out, we don't say the Vatican is free to pollute just as much as the United States, because reasons. And much of the pollution generated in China is used to produce consumer products for entitled westerners.

      We NEED to quit that and instead, push for SMRs like NuScale.

      Yeah, no. Putting risk aside, nuclear power will never touch the cost effectiveness of wind and solar with a 20 light year pole. And the baseload BS that people love to trot out on wind and solar applies moreso to nuclear, as plants shut down for planned (or worse unplanned) maintenance all the time. Which means you need to build spare generators to pick up the slack when one of your plants goes down for days, weeks, months or sometimes even years at a time.

      It would be cheaper, take less time, and involve none of the risk to just build extra wind and solar capacity into the grid and back it up with the sort of pumped storage that's used to back up nuclear power, or a Tesla Powerpack like they built in Australia, one that will pay for itself in a couple more years.

    6. Re:The US is way behind .. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is not true.
      CHina is already above per capita that they need to be. Hell, they were above EU's average clear back in early 2010's, and continue to grow theirs. Yet, EU who is less than China, continues to work to drop theirs. Why? Because emissions are emissions. The ONLY time that CHina flat lined was when their economy had crashed and they were lying about it (2014-6). But, they have NOT dropped emissions.
      Now, for 2-3 years in a row, it is not only growing, but ACCELERATING. It is known that they will be at least 4.7%, and quite possibly over 7% growth this year. But, the problem is not due to their economy, but the growth in their COal plants. They are adding more coal plants from 2017-2020, than AMerica has.

      As to India, thankfully, they ARE low. BUT, they need to remain low and can only do that by adding AE, nukes, geo-thermal, etc and not fossil fuel. But, last year, they went up up some 9%. Considering how low their total emission are, 9% is not huge. Still, India is working hard to move to AE and Nukes. For that, I applaud them.
      But the only way that China is going to drop theirs is if we all say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. They do not have to drop emissions fast. They just have to head in the right direction. For 30 years, they have gone in the wrong direction.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:The US is way behind .. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No. China and India do NOT get to pollute 7 times more than America. Neither have the economy that America has (china is approaching), which it is GDP that is the real producer of CO2. Hpowever, the REAL problem is that ALL nations need to drop our CO2, or at worst, not grow it. India needs to stop their CO2 growth, but thankfully, they are fairly low (though they are 3rd highest emitter).

      And no, we need on-demand systems. Nuke is not only viable, but probably the only real choice. This BS about heavily subsidizing AE (just wind and solar) so that it is cheaper than nukes and then declaring nukes too expensive is INSANE. Worse, adding batteries/storage to it, only increases the costs. What is needed for America is to replace OLD nuclear power plants with new nuclear power plants. We also need to add more wind/solar, but we can not add too much. Just look at what is happening to Germany. They are one of the MOST expensive electricity in Europe (as well as one of the major emitters in Europe) while France is one of the cheapest (and cleanest).

      Here. Good write-up on this.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:The US is way behind .. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you have some more recent figures as the most up to date I find quickly are from 2014 which show the USA emitting over twice the carbon on a per capita basis as China, 16.5 tonnes per year vs 7.5 tonnes per person per year with India at 1.7.
      The data I'm looking at doesn't lump the EU together, but has Poland at the same level as China, Germany and even Finland higher and the UK, Italy and the less developed parts of the EU lower.
      The idea of someone bitching about someone else emitting half or close to 10% seems biased at least, especially considering that both China and India seem to be promoting nukes and renewables more then America which has elected a leader to push coal and has mostly just happened to replaced coal with gas for economic reasons rather then for environmental reasons.
      https://data.worldbank.org/ind...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:The US is way behind .. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      No. China and India do NOT get to pollute 7 times more than America.

      Of course they do, when they have 7 times the population.

      Neither have the economy that America has (china is approaching)

      The only thing that matters is per-capita pollution - everything else is rationalization for western arrogance and entitlement. Moreso when most of the CO2 that has been pumped into the atmosphere over the past 150 years has come from western countries. And again, much of that pollution in China you're complaining about now is powering factories to make products for American shelves.

      Nuke is not only viable, but probably the only real choice. This BS about heavily subsidizing AE (just wind and solar) so that it is cheaper than nukes and then declaring nukes too expensive is INSANE.

      Nuclear power is never going to be cheaper. You can make all your wishful nuclear fanboy dreams come true on new vaporware, I mean new designs, and they will still be far more costly than wind and solar. Nuclear is always going to be more complex, you're always going to have issues with containment. You're aways going to have issues with security and disposal.

      Nuclear power is completely and utterly unjustifiable.

    10. Re:The US is way behind .. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      My grandmother had a saying..."If your so smart, why ain't you rich?"

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  4. high by zlives · · Score: 3

    high co2 content good for trees...

    1. Re:high by zlives · · Score: 1

      /duck

    2. Re:high by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes it makes them grow fast, tall and spindly and fall over. Oh wait, maybe that's not good.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:high by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      high co2 content good for trees...

      Only briefly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. China is reclaiming desert by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    China is reclaiming desert with grid plantings.

    My understanding is that the USA has at least as many forested acres as ever, but a lot less biomass, and a lot of dead trees. Old growth is taller so it slows wind down more, and it's also more massive so it fixes more carbon. (Trees only grow from a thin layer beneath the bark, and the rate of growth is limited by photosynthesis, with larger trees able to do more of it because they have more leaf area with which to receive insolation.)

    Is there a biomass index?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:China is reclaiming desert by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Is there a biomass index?

      There's one for the US. Presumably other governments have something similar.

    2. Re:China is reclaiming desert by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

      I thought they'd be against the sietch way of life, but since the government's doing it, it's obvious -- they're trying to corral, herd, and finally control Shai-Hulud. I guess when they think about extending lifespans via socialized medicine, they think *big*.

    3. Re:China is reclaiming desert by mpercy · · Score: 1

      https://education.seattlepi.co...

      "As of 2010, the United States had 304,022,000 hectares (751,255,000 acres) of forested lands, a number that represents one-third of the country. Of this area, 25 percent is old growth forest, 67 percent is secondary forest, and 8 percent is tree farms or plantations."

      "It is estimated that prior to European settlement, the United States. was 46 percent forested. European settlers quickly harvested much of the available timber for housing, industry, the creation of railroads and to clear land for farming. By 1907, the U.S. forest cover was reduced to 33 percent.

      "In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period. The trend in reforesting areas has been driven by organizations such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Arbor Day Foundation. Reforestation efforts were critical to maintain forest cover starting at the beginning of the 20th century, and they are the reason that there is a net positive trend in forest growth today.

  6. This is why change needn't be doom and gloom by Dasher42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have absolutely got to do something about climate change. Most of what we've got to do would also make the world a lot better in sundry other ways.

    If we helped the landscape keep multiple stories of vegetation, and worked out ways to scale orchards designed the same way, it would make for great resistance to drought and a stable food supply, and over time, correct for this spike in greenhouse gasses.

    Entire horticultural and early agriculture civilizations have been founded not on controlling the landscape's entire harvest, but on enriching it and reaping the surplus. In this way of life, economy and environment are not at all at odds. In fact, they are interdependent. You can look at terra preta and its history in the Amazon basin for an example of a long-term, large-scale win-win scenario. http://news.cornell.edu/storie...

    If you want to see what is happening in China, watch this video, "The Lessons of the Loess Plateau": https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Even if you don't exactly agree with *how* they got it done, the results for the landscape and the prosperity of the people there speak for themselves. Start asking how your local economic and political systems can start to do right by the soil too.

  7. Hari Seldon, where are you? by Jogar+the+Barbarian · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we're serious about building Trantor, this is exactly the WRONG WAY to go.

    --
    3. Profit!
    2. ???
    1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
  8. that is good to see by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have Brazil clear cutting their forest so as to supply Europe with Beef, and CHina with exotic woods.
    Then we have the west which has already done a number on our forest and are not replanting fast enough.
    So, it is good to actually see both China and India showing the rest of the world what needs to happen.
    It will not help that much with the CO2, but it will help absorb pollution, etc.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. Re:China is building as many coal plants... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Hold on.
    Look, you are correct to blast China for what they are doing to the air with coal.
    BUT, by the same token, you have to give them credit for improving their forests.
    These really will not help with CO2, but it WILL help absorb a lot of other pollution that CHina creates. For example, their SO2, lead, mercury, etc remains horrendous. This greening, if close to the cities, can help pull that out of the air and ground. And neither CHina's nor India's was natural. This was citizens planting.

    OTOH, New England's was not. Basically, it was stripped of forests and now allowed time to re-grow. IOW, the reforesting actually has been natural, and man simply did not see economic reasons to rape/pillage at that time.

    And BOTH capitalism and socialism work. America, and EVERY western nation has a mixture of both.
    China's a mixture of Capitalism and Communism (in spite of what idiots claim).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  10. Re:Headline inversion by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    BTW, here are some interesting articles and maps.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  11. Re:China's dependent on the US for their food supp by mpercy · · Score: 2

    I'll be kind and assume this is a genuine question and not sarcasm.

    It is not a possessive apostrophe-s, it is a contraction of "China is".

    In English you can use contractions to shorten a word by removing one letter or more and substituting an apostrophe in the same spot. For example, chop wi out of "I will", throw in an apostrophe, and you have I’ll. The resulting word is shorter and faster to say, with only one syllable (sound) instead of two. Similarly, she would becomes she’d and he is becomes he's.

  12. But subject to more storm damage by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The problem is that China has basically destroyed large segments of it's barrier islands and wetlands that absorb storm damage, so expect to read in a few years about how much damage has dramatically increased in China from storms, that otherwise would have not caused major calamities.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  13. Re:China's dependent on the US for their food supp by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    uh, you really should be paying attention to our food. Have you wondered why our Apple Juice, honey, V8 juice now contains high levels of Lead, Mercury, Pesticides (even in ones that are marked organic ), fungicides, herbicides, etc, amongst other pollutants? Yeah. Got news for you. THis is the FASTEST way to figure out where our food is coming from.
    Have you looked at our fish? It is not only mislabeled, but also loaded with all sorts of items that are not found in Alaska. That Salmon and 'Alaskan Cod' is showing up with a lot more mercury, and other pollutants than what the American ships pull in.
    How about Dog/Cat food? Have you wondered why dogs are dying and it is being blamed on the food? It is because far too many ingredients come from CHina. We buy Merick since they promise to NEVER allow ingredients from China into their food.
    DO NOT get me started on the FUCKING CHICKEN that KFC and Chick-fil-a sell. Yeah. These dirt bags are buying it processed in China while lying about it. So does Safeway. And that is just the ones that some of my microbio old classmates told me about.

    Our food chain used to the the gem of the world back in the 40-70s. Come reagan, it started downwards because he gutted the inspectors, and with W and O, it went down even further . Our food chain has become a joke. It is above CHina's, but increasingly, not by much.
    At least over there, they still shoot ppl for putting in poisons into their foods. In America, we call it entrepreneurial.
    Fuck, Blue Buffalo still is adding ingredients from China, while lying through their fucking teeth.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. Re: Headline inversion by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I am not GOP. I am GDI.

    With that said, it is the Dems that are preventing the cutting of these trees. They say, it is not natural.
    BIG mistake.

    Trump is about to allow foresting through national forest, and Apparently, so is California. Apparently, this last fire that swept through dead pine and spruce killing ppl and destroying hollywood star's homes, has finally convinced dems to allow it. Sad.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. This guy's doing his part. And so is India. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Informative

    The man single-handedly planted a 550 hectare forest over a period of 30 years which, oddly enough, brought back animals and even a stream to the barren land.

    He has gone on to plant another 150 hectares of land nearby.

    In 2016, India planted 50 million trees (saplings of various types) as part of its deal with the Paris Climate Accord.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  16. China driving species into extinction by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Is that "green?"

    Some animals China is driving into extinction:

    - vaquita
    - pangolin
    - elephants
    - rhinoceros

    Several others.

  17. Re:China's dependent on the US for their food supp by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Little Seizures pizza is made from Chinese ingredients, too.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Re: Headline inversion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Trump is about to allow foresting through national forest, and Apparently, so is California. Apparently, this last fire that swept through dead pine and spruce killing ppl and destroying hollywood star's homes, has finally convinced dems to allow it. Sad.

    Cutting the trees won't work to control fires, except in certain very limited situations. I'm sure it will work for the richie rich people above Los Angeles, but it's not going to work up North, because the area is too large to manage in that fashion. They're only going to take the trees they want, not the trees we'd need them to take. Only yearly fires really work. After the fires on Cobb Mountain, the contractors stole all kinds of trees they weren't supposed to cut...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Re:False by jezwel · · Score: 1
    That's because the coal fired power plants can't take the extreme heat baking Australia at the moment - January was Australia’s hottest month on record, with the country’s mean temperature exceeding 30C for the first time since records began in 1910. This results in coal plants going offline, so gas plants spin up to take on the load - but only *after* spot pricing has gone through the roof.
    The Tesla battery is taking the top out of this market, but it's only one player where more are needed..

    Lastly - the private owners of the coal fired Liddel power station are closing it down as it is cheaper to move to renewables than spend $500-600 million refurbing an almost 50yr old power station, pushing it well past its design specs. The last time this was done the budget was blown by ~100% and the plant was online for only 20% of the time - a complete failure. This closure of coal plants in favour of renewables is happening nationwide - there are NIL new coal plants proposed due to poor financials.

  20. Re:False by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Oh, thanks for that wingnut piece that insulted the intelligence of anyone who read it. GND means massive investment in wind and solar, which will create a huge jobs boom, not just banning coal.

  21. Ecomodernists like me rejoice by alysion · · Score: 1

    Per recent review: As seen by NASA, the world is getting greener due to expansion of silviculture and intensive agriculture. China and Indiaâ"the worldâ(TM)s most populous countriesâ"are leading the increase in greening on land. The greening is anthropogenic, due to fossil-fueled industrial agriculture. Global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s [arid land when irrigated turns green until ground water is exhausted or there is no fuel for pumping], an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. One-third of Earthâ(TM)s vegetated lands are greening, while only 5 percent are growing browner. Anthropocene enthusiasts and ecomodernists, like me, rejoice. Chinaâ(TM)s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes from its programs to conserve and expand forests [aka tree farms] to produce future wood products (and incidentally reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution, and climate change) as well as intensification of irrigated agriculture in order to feed their large populations [for a time] using multiple cropping practices that have increased food production 35 to 40 percent since 2000 by turning fossil fuel into food to grow the economy. One interpretation of the data: âoeOnce people realize there is a problem, they tend to fix it... Humans are incredibly resilient.Thatâ(TM)s what we see in the satellite data.â Humans are fixing the world! Data needs to be interpreted, however. The interpretation is provided by the journal Nature Sustainability (pay-walled article, Feb. 2019, in pay-to-play journal launched Jan. 2018), and is one interpretation (reviewed on NASA Earth Observatory). Caveat emptor. http://www.sustainable.soltechdesigns.com/index.html#eps3

  22. Re:Leading in Greening AND Browning by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    They are also the in the top 3 for installing renewables like solar and wind - they are a like large container ship, its takes a long time to turn and stop.

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  23. Re:China is building as many coal plants... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    China improves their forests by deforestating other countries.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/837...

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  24. Re: Headline inversion by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Actually, it is easy to get them to take of the dead ones. While there is lumber to be made out of the timber, it can also be burned for electricity and heating. Colorado has several groups doing that now, and oddly, it is shipped to Europe and Mexico.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  25. Re: Headline inversion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Actually, it is easy to get them to take of the dead ones.

    Actually, it really isn't. California is chock-full of them. In many areas, every third tree standing is a dead pine. In some areas, it's much worse.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Re:China's dependent on the US for their food supp by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    really?
    If so, thanx. I will avoid them.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  27. Re: Headline inversion by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    that was because your gov have been opposed to allowing full clearing/replanting of that area.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. Re: Headline inversion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Actually, it is easy to get them to take of the dead ones.

    Actually, it really isn't. California is chock-full of them. In many areas, every third tree standing is a dead pine. In some areas, it's much worse.

    that was because your gov have been opposed to allowing full clearing/replanting of that area.

    So just to be clear, we can't have this partial clearing that you say is easy to get because we won't allow full clearing? Make up your mind. Full clearing depletes biomass, greened acres are irrelevant, biomass is what matters. Old growth forest fixes more carbon and slows wind down more than new forest. This is true for nearly every tree species.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. Re: Headline inversion by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Old growth matters. Yes. That is best. OTOH, when all you have are pine/spruce and most are dead, then you are better off clearing away the dead trees and RE-PLANTING.
    Lumber ppl will come in and use what they can. BUT, there is plenty of material that they can not, but the bio-mass ppl can. These are the ppl making pellets that go into heat stoves or are used at electrical plants. Your past 2 govs allowed SOME lumber work, but none of the bio-mass clearing. Keep in mind that there would still be plenty of others, esp if not done as wiping out the area, but in normal cross patterns.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Re:China's dependent on the US for their food supp by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Please link evidence that shows Chick-fil-a get's chicken from anywhere outside the U.S. I googled, and find nothing to support that.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  31. Re: Headline inversion by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Nothing sad or bad about controlled burns
    https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail...

    --
    Just another day in Paradise