This article is frustrating for me. Especially his take on trees. The article states the target goal/amount of trees planted would only reduce carbon 6%. Ok, but, it will reduce temperature. I live in WV near a state forest. It is typically 7°-15° F cooler at my house than in town. Additionally, the sun in the summer doesn’t even hit my house until noon-ish, which significantly reduces my air conditioner consumption.

I chose to share this mostly for awareness. I am not especially fond of his perspective.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This tech bro needs to go away the same way Elon needs to go away.

    I also completely disagree with his perspective on trees because it ignores so much of what we already know that trees do (other than store carbon in their bodies and in the soil around them). Trees are basically straws that take water from the soil and put it in the atmosphere. Along with this they put turpenoids that act as seeds for droplet formation in clouds. They prevent erosion and help infiltration. They increase soil C in both litter and below ground inputs (which extends the duration of moisture into the drought season for most drought limited climate. All of these non-linearties further increase the effectiveness of trees as a stop gap against climate change. Trees buffer local climate and support keeping areas of our planet as functional ecosystems. Without functional ecosystems, we stand 0 chance against this issue. Along with other environmentally appropriate solutions like re-installing deep rooted prairies into the mid-west, tree just make sense.

    And most importantly, trees exist right now. They aren’t some imaginary technology that emits more CO2 than it consumes because its lab bench level at best. There are species adapted to every climate in every biome on planet earth where it is physiologically possible to grow trees. Trees are something we can do right now that can actually make a dent; they have basically no down-side, and many slight but important upsides.

    Bill Gates is a turd that should be ignored in the same manner that Elon musk should be ignored. Just because he enacts his individual will through billionaire “philanthropy” instead of through corporate decision making, doesn’t make him some savior to be listened to.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get what you’re saying but to equate Gates to Musk is a bit much. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation actually does some good work. Musk throws tantrums with his money.

        They should be taxed on 100% of that surplus money and we should use it to fund the programs we collectively agree to as a society.

        The benevolence of billionaires isn’t how we should be making these decisions. Its whitewashing the fact that they have dismantled our societies ability to govern itself through taxation and public spending.

        Not to mention Bill Gates “philanthropy” has also had disastrous consequences.

        So no. Fuck Bill Gates. He doesn’t get a pass because his marketing team is more effective at whitewashing his wage theft than Elon Musk.