Why we are fucked

Highlights (tons/capita)

Qatar 37.29
Ireland 8.32
USA 15.52
UK 5.55
Australia 17.1
Canada 18.58
China 7.38
India 1.91
Greenland 0.03

If you are worried about man made CO2, plant more trees.

An eminently solvable problem, if indeed it is a problem.

Also why we are fucked

An unwillingness to commit to massive and disciplined reforestation initiatives?

Or, humanities tendencies for FUD end of the world narratives to resonate strongly, repeatedly and consistently to where humans turn off their rational skepticism towards them?

Restoring the prairies would be more helpful.

America is actually quite forested.

Lets face it, sea level is going to rise. People are going to be displaced.

Just like has happened throughout human history.

I mean, Englishmen moving to Ireland and all that.

If you wear these shades you will be able to see the elephant in the room

Hopefully before both the elephant and the room become extinct

Where have you been planting your 600 trees per year for the last 50 or 60 years?

Have you room for another 6000 plus trees?

There is more than enough land available for reforestation initiatives to make man made CO2 a mitigated issue.

34.81 billion tons of co2 per year needs 890 million trees to offset

Or 12,000 sq km

Add the 15 billion trees being cut down every year we will require another 200,000 sq km

Total 212,000 sq km of trees planted per year

Given that there is only 16 million sq km approx available that means we can only keep doing that for 75 years , and that’s if consumption does not rise and further land is no made unusable by sea level rise or other negative climate change effects

Nor does it address the excess co2 already in the atmosphere

Are those trees being planted now? Have they been for the last 50 years

If humans allowed saplings regrow on cleared forests, let alone replanted them:

  1. The Earth’s forested area would increased by 33%

  2. 205 billion metric tons of carbon would be removed from the atmosphere. (Which is 2/3 of the approximately 300 billion metric tons of the man made carbon from the Industrial Revolution until now).

But, by all means, keep acting like there is nothing that can be done regarding CO2,

or that man made CO2 is not a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the CO2 produced from naturally decomposing vegetation every year,

or that this end of the world narrative is not the Left’s version of the Right’s Divine End of the World narratives, used politically for the same reasons.

(“The other side are sinners bringing about the end of the world, we’re doomed, doomed…send money here now, to stave off or delay or help fight the pending Zombie apocalypse, and be sure to vote for our candidate…”)

Alas forest is usually cleared to grow crops for an ever increasing population, which is not compatible with natural forest regeneration

Fact is the area of forest is shrinking year on year

Coulda, woulda, shoulda does not cut it

There are plenty of mitigations possible , but they were not done back in the 70s and 80s, when they’ve might of had a positive effect

Even if we halt the increase in consumption now the outcome is very bad for humans

Mention lowering consumption and people don’t want to know, or think someone else should do it for them

This is why we are fucked

The co2 produced by natural processes remains constant, plants fix C when they grow and release it when they die

Humans take fossil carbon from millions of years of forest growth and release it into the balanced C cycle

These two things are quite different

Except god does not exist

It’s liked saying unicorns are the hippies version of a horse

Only within certain timescales.

Which is to say, they are not constant.

What we are really talking about is two false narratives, both concerning the end of the world brought on by sinners, used for tribalism, and to direct monies and votes from the the rubes.

Neither the divine end of days narrative, nor the climate change end of days narrative is predictively reliable.

And they are both used like bunk Carney or tent revival cons.

This is common forestry practice in the USA, at least.

Either they plant seedlings, or they leave “seed” or “mother” trees widely spaced out. Typically on USFS land around here, it’s the latter. Seedlings more common on private timber company land.

In any case, the natural reforestation progress in stages typically happens.

I’d say modern farming has fucked up more carbon sequestration than forestry in the USA.

Just wait, birth rates are down around the world.

Soon, well, now even, we don’t have enough young people coming up to take over the jobs that need to be done.

Quote function, motherfucker.

Oil isn’t/wasn’t formed from forests.

Coal and peat are, which is what I assume you are referring to.

You can’t even get your facts straight.