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.

  • Espi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Exactly. The first thing we need to do is stop extracting extra carbon from the ground.

    Then we literally need to start reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, probably by literally growing trees, cutting them down and them straight up burying them deep underground.

    • astropenguin5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or stuff like prairie restoration since prairie grasses are WAY better at actually sequestering carbon into their roots than trees

    • bela@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably easier to sink them in the deep ocean. Though most trees being less dense than water might make that difficult as well.

    • FullMaxPowerStirner@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s always a problem with grammar and pronouns. I am not, and likely you aren’t, working to extract carbon on a massive scale. Industries are. And these industries got elect officials in their pockets. And even if they’d crash, some Arab oil princes wouldn’t wanna lose all their assets.