[Newfie]

Recently there was an article about planting trees to stop climate change. Here is a response....

Lewis also dismisses the claim, by Bastin’s co-author Thomas Crowther, that “forest restoration is the best climate change solution available today.”

“That is emphatically not correct. The best solution for climate change is to keep fossil carbons in the ground,” Lewis says. Other experts have also raised concerns that the hype around Bastin’s study is creating misconceptions about the problem and primary solution, which could be problematic in the long-run. They fear a focus on tree planting could distract policy-makers from acting on other efforts to reduce carbon emissions and stop climate change.

Bold is mine.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... V_V-CR4FR4


This is not to dismiss the idea of planting trees or better yet retaining forests.

It is within reach of most of us to buy a few acres of forest, individually or collectively, to protect it from “development.”

I would like to see some tax relief for protecting wooded land. I spend nearly $2,000/year in taxes to protect my 168 acres.

[Ibon]

I would like to see some tax relief for protecting wooded land. I spend nearly $2,000/year in taxes to protect my 168 acres.

Panama is not self sufficient in beef production so there is a property tax exemption as an incentive for all cattle farmers. The previous owners of our reserve were cattle farmers and set up this exemption. We removed livestock and are reforesting close to 100 acres but we keep around 20 head of cattle and enough pastures to continue to qualify for this tax exemption. The government does NOT offer this incentive for reforestation which is unfortunate.

Se we pay no property taxes because we keep farting cows.

[jedrider]

Well, we can forget about Brazil doing it's part:

Thousands of fires ravage Amazon rainforest - Bolsonaro is Brazil's Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDE6Q-pKpI

USA Coal
Brazil Deforestation

[asg70]

#ThanksTrump

[Outcast_Searcher]

Recently there was an article about planting trees to stop climate change. Here is a response....

Lewis also dismisses the claim, by Bastin’s co-author Thomas Crowther, that “forest restoration is the best climate change solution available today.”

“That is emphatically not correct. The best solution for climate change is to keep fossil carbons in the ground,” Lewis says. Other experts have also raised concerns that the hype around Bastin’s study is creating misconceptions about the problem and primary solution, which could be problematic in the long-run. They fear a focus on tree planting could distract policy-makers from acting on other efforts to reduce carbon emissions and stop climate change.

Bold is mine.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... V_V-CR4FR4


This is not to dismiss the idea of planting trees or better yet retaining forests.

It is within reach of most of us to buy a few acres of forest, individually or collectively, to protect it from “development.”

I would like to see some tax relief for protecting wooded land. I spend nearly $2,000/year in taxes to protect my 168 acres.

I think it's about context. People shouldn't assume that, "OK, well, there's no problem since we can just plant trees". (It's not hard to envision the climate denial crowd making just such an argument -- even the folks in that camp who know better). But of course, planting lots of trees is far better than doing nothing.

There's also the political angle. Realistically, we're NOT going to stop burning a hell of a lot of fossil fuels -- and the weak kneed politicians re the very timid to no efforts to have an effective CO2 tax demonstrate that. So in THAT context, things like planting trees to tech mitigation to actively remove CO2 (expensive, but research ongoing) is the best we have -- since we're clearly not going to do much to do the right thing any time soon.

[rockdoc123]

Realistically, we're NOT going to stop burning a hell of a lot of fossil fuels -- and the weak kneed politicians re the very timid to no efforts to have an effective CO2 tax demonstrate that.

I’ve said numerous times that carbon taxes do not work. The longest experience is the one in British Columbia. They put in place a carbon tax back in 2008 and based on all measurements it is a failed experiment. Throughout the ensuing decade, carbon emissions steadily increased even as tax rate and tax revenues increased, basically the carbon tax had no effect on consumption. As well the revenue collected has not been spent on research or implementation of innovation in renewables, in essence, it was nothing more than a tax grab for politicians to piss away on election promises in the way they are apt to do.

To my mind the only way to move people away from growing carbon consumption is to offer alternatives that are cost-competitive and result in little surrender of utility. As an example many people in large urban centres are moving over to electric vehicles as they have now become cost-competitive. The reason more people haven't jumped on the bandwagon is because of issues surrounding battery storage for long haul and winter/offroad capabilities for non-urban areas. Those problems are gradually being solved but the biggest impact to my mind would be for gov't to offer tax incentives to companies for research and implementation in those areas. Companies will put their investments where they get the biggest bang for the buck full circle and tax incentives lower their at risk investment without necessarily raising the price to the consumer and hence helping revenues increase. Those tax breaks will eventually be offset by increased revenues and hence increased corporate taxes on profits. Of course this sort of thing doesn't generate votes which seems to be the only thing anyone is interested in.

[Newfie]

Roc,

Your basic assumption is that human nature won’t allow us to change our habits. I think it’s true we won’t until we are forced to. But there is a roar chance that if the scientific community talked to folks like adults, told the. The truth, they would react better than they are doing now.

Trees help, but it’s not sufficient. More renewables help, if they are not just used to offset a growing carbon budget.

The thing we need to do is use less carbon through conservation. We in the first world could do a lot I. That regard. Still not sufficient, but significant.

And I don’t think it would decrease our happiness.

[rockdoc123]

Your basic assumption is that human nature won’t allow us to change our habits. I think it’s true we won’t until we are forced to. But there is a roar chance that if the scientific community talked to folks like adults, told the. The truth, they would react better than they are doing now.

My basic assumption is people as a rule do that which is most efficient, whether that be in expending their own energy or using their capital. As a consequence, they will spend money on renewables when they can replace fully what they have now at a similar price point. Most people do not have the luxury of ignoring the cost element.

The problem with the "scientific community" is that what the average joe thinks the "scientific community" is isn't not even close to it. They get their "science" information from press releases heavily interpreted by creative writers and often issued by researchers who have skin in the game. As far as I can tell the only place to find honest science is in the published journals. Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks are either too lazy or don't care enough to read scientific articles and definitely are afraid to voice an opinion that would make them seem to be a "bad person". Gone are the days when science was done by scientists who were not particularly interested in being rich and famous but rather just wanted to solve a particular problem that interested them. At least in the journals, you can sieve through what is an opinion (often not published in a peer-reviewed journal) versus substantiated fact.

[Newfie]

Roc,

What percent of Americans or Scientists think:

Perpetual motion is a reality?
That there is an infinite supply of oil?
That we can support a infinite population?
That it’s OK to throw plastic bags on the street?
That pollution is no problem?
That we should cut down the last Redwood?

I contend there is an avenue to communicate with folks, and it’s in simple logical and HONEST discussion.

It won’t be easy for sure. The alternative is worse.

[Ibon]

The problem with the "scientific community" is that what the average joe thinks the "scientific community" is isn't not even close to it. They get their "science" information from press releases heavily interpreted by creative writers and often issued by researchers who have skin in the game. Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks are either too lazy or don't care enough to read scientific articles and definitely are afraid to voice an opinion that would make them seem to be a "bad person". Gone are the days........

Most real scientists are not activists although many climate scientists with no real "ideological" or economic skin in the game are deeply alarmed at what they are seeing. As are researchers in other fields that are emperically seeing the effects of human overshoot ie loss of biodiversity etc.

politicians, journalists, activists, media outlets, corporate lobbyists. All of these just mentioned are the ones who have skin in the game.There is no real rational counterpoint to the influence these entities have. Scientists by their very work are not part of the "public sphere" of information since academic journals are mostly read by fellow scientists and even when they do wander into journalism they have to compete with all those fore mentioned entities with skin in the game.

So where does this leave us? Ungrounded in terms of science leading or spearheading information that can be translated to any effective policy. In fact those with skin in the game often act as a barrier.

The forces that guide society are unhinged from emperical science.

As a result your average Joe often is left with a confused apathy full of distrust.,

Or worse finding refuge in dummed down tribal alliances.









So from where

[Newfie]

What we need to do, one mans opinion.

What We Need to Do
As a start, here are twelve things that are urgent: In our classrooms and in our lives as scientists,
1) We must acknowledge that overpopulation is the world’s most serious and threatening problem and that this problem requires immediate and urgent attention.
2) We must teach about the arithmetic and consequences of growth as they apply to our present rates of consumption of resources and to our current national and global conditions of overpopulation.
3) We must seek to educate elected officials at all governmental levels about the severe present problems of overpopulation in our own local communities, in the United States and the world. We treasure our democracy but we must remember the words of Isaac Asimov (28): “Democracy cannot survive overpopulation.”
4) We must break down the mental and other blocks that keep most of our environmental organizations, large and small, from addressing overpopulation on the local and national levels.
5) We need to get all of our mainline scientific associations and societies to act on the recognition that overpopulation is a threat to the stable societies. Science can thrive only in a stable society. The long-term survival of science is threatened by overpopulation.
6) We should seek to get the U.S. and other governments to support major programs of family planning in the U.S. and throughout the world. These programs should make high quality family
A.A. Bartlett March 20, 2012
Page 14 of 17
planning assistance available worldwide at no cost to all individuals who request it. The goal of the family planning program should be that “Every child is a wanted child.” Rapid population decrease is essential to achieving sustainability.
7) We must expend great efforts worldwide in the education and emancipation of women, giving women freedom to make their own health, reproductive, economic and political decisions.
We should work to guide production of fossil fuels and mineral resources in accord with the concept of “Sustained Availability,” (The Uppsala Protocol) thinking of it as a program of Equal Opportunity for Future Generations.
9) We must continue our efforts to use science and technology to greatly improve the efficiency with which we use energy and mineral resources within the framework of Sustained Availability.
10) We must continue research on the development of alternative fuels, being careful to see that these alternative fuels are not competing with the development of food supplies as is the case in 2012 with production of ethanol in the U.S.
11) We must encourage the transition from our present inefficient mega-agriculture (29) to localized agriculture that operates solely from solar power and from human and animal labor.
12) We must seek to re-orient science, technology and engineering away from their present roles that support population growth and redirect them to work for more modest, less glamorous and less complex roles that can improve the quality of life for human beings. The model might be that which is found in the book Small is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher. (30)
As one can see, the creation of a sustainable society will be both difficult and challenging.

His timescales are upset by recent new technology but his first principals are solid.

https://www.albartlett.org/articles/art ... 2mar20.pdf

[rockdoc123]

politicians, journalists, activists, media outlets, corporate lobbyists. All of these just mentioned are the ones who have skin in the game.There is no real rational counterpoint to the influence these entities have. Scientists by their very work are not part of the "public sphere" of information since academic journals are mostly read by fellow scientists and even when they do wander into journalism they have to compete with all those fore mentioned entities with skin in the game

You are incorrect. There are many scientists who have decided to chase fame and with it the fortunes of continued cash support from various entities. Those particular scientists are less concerned with identifying the error bars on what we know than they are in ginning up support for a particular viewpoint. Generally when their work is published in the literature they are not allowed to include opinions or any viewpoints that are not supported by their research, data or previous published research, that is if peer review is conducted in the correct fashion. However, when some of those same individuals are interviewed they spew widely over the top predictions which the public accept as being somehow scientifically correct when in fact those views are not backed up by their own research. Case in point is the wild claims of tens of metres of sea level rise by 2100 or tens of degrees of Celcius increase in temperature, none of which are backed up by actual published research. I think Judith Curry did a very good job of pointing out what the most likely range in various measures such as ECS and TCS are in her working paper entitled Climate Change, Whats the Worst Case? a copy of which is available at:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/22/climate-change-whats-the-worst-case/#more-25104
The scientists who are interested in fame and fortune are also the ones most susceptible to confirmation bias. As a consequence you can find papers published that avoid referencing already published work that disagrees with their own. This is further a problem because peer reviewers are often also subject to confirmation bias and the fact a number of journals allow authors to pick their peer reviewers simply exacerbates the problem. It would be nice if you could trust the opinions of each and every scientist but unfortunately you can't, they are human and subject to the same demands and pressures as everyone else. My own time in academia (many years ago) highlighted how rampant tribalism is amoungst scientists and that tribalism often steers research in a particular direction and sometimes creates pressure to arrive at specific conclusions.
This isn't something new, it has been talked about amongst the scientific community as a problem for decades with little in the way of resolution other than some journals pushing for more stringent peer review. Unfortunately, if the Senior Editor of a particular journal has a certain viewpoint then he usually assigns reviewers to papers that have similar viewpoints (not surprising as he knows them fairly well) and hence comfirmation bias has firm footing. This is why critical reading of published papers is essential to understanding what is going on.

[dohboi]

I highly recommend just putting rok on ignore and never looking at anything s/he posts. it saves a lot of un-necessary wrangling!

[asg70]

I highly recommend just putting rok on ignore and never looking at anything s/he posts. it saves a lot of un-necessary wrangling!

I would put Short and Plant on ignore befor Rok.

[Newfie]

Roc,

What difference does it make? So you don’t trust scientist, so you trust yourself?

Do you ROC believe:
Perpetual motion is a reality?
That there is an infinite supply of oil?
That we can support a infinite population?
That it’s OK to throw plastic bags on the street?
That pollution is no problem?
That we should cut down the last Redwood?

Let your own eyes and good sense guide you.

So after looking at that list do you disagree that:
We should develop renewables.
Reduce fossils fuel usage.
Reduce fossil water usage.
Reduce plastic wastes?
Conserve natural spaces?
Reduce human population?

[Tanada]

So after looking at that list do you disagree that:
We should develop renewables.
Reduce fossils fuel usage.
Reduce fossil water usage.
Reduce plastic wastes?
Conserve natural spaces?
Reduce human population?

I absolutely and without reservation support four of these and tentatively support the other two, depending on the how and when.

[Newfie]

Thanks,

And that’s the point. We spend all our energy trying to convince folks of some particular point when in he grand scheme of things there is much room for agreement. Sure you R’s not perfect for anyone but it’s a start which is better than standing still arguing.

[rockdoc123]

Let your own eyes and good sense guide you.
There are certain things that that approach will work with, others it does not. This is especially true with regards to climate change given the various bad scenarios folks wring their hands over are model based.

So after looking at that list do you disagree that:

We should develop renewables.

I've said numerous times that we need to up our game here. That will only happen renewables become attractive from a cost/benefit analysis in comparison to fossil fuels. Carbon tax is the absolute wrong way to get there but tax incentives would help.

Reduce fossils fuel usage.

Only in the case of what is not necessary. Unfortunately many seem happy with continuing on with their own lifestyle while denying the developing world access to fossil fuels which made our own lifestyle possible. If headway can be made with renewables then fossil fuel usage for power can be reduced but likely never eliminated entirely. That leaves FF for petro chemicals etc which are still required.

Reduce fossil water usage.

I'm not sure how you do that. In theory it sounds good but people need fresh water to drink. I suppose there are areas of waste such as lawn watering in southern California that could be avoided. A better solution to my mind is building desalination plants and having the ability to ship water through pipelines (much like they did in Libya).

Reduce plastic wastes?

I'm for that. Not sure why everything has to be packaged in plastic anyway. As a kid I remember there was very little that used plastic for containers or wrap.

Conserve natural spaces?

Yes but not at the total expense of access. As an example there are groups who want to shut off areas in the Rockies to access of any kind. I think there need to be rules and they need to be enforced. The rules are already largely there it is the enforcement that is a problem. I don't like seeing idiots with ATV's roaring around when I'm on a pristine river fly fishing so this one is pretty much a given.

Reduce human population?

In theory, it makes sense but who gets to choose who lives and dies? It is an age-old problem.

[Newfie]

Never said I had the answers, half the problem is fine the right question.

And there are few easy answers. Many more conundrums.

But again you make my point, even though are not fully onboard with the climate change agenda your sentiments align closely with those agenda items. There are vast areas where we agree sufficiently to start making progress, if only we would focus on those areas instead of the disagreement. But I guess for many folks it’s more fun to argue, or to place blame, than accomplish something,

[Ibon]

But I guess for many folks it’s more fun to argue, or to place blame, than accomplish something,

Doing that while in front of your digital device!

That's real impressive!!!!
Shows real commitment!

Lazy lazy lazy lazy defines us more than anything.