this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
614 points (93.4% liked)

Nature Enthusiasts

799 readers
13 users here now

For all media, news and discussion focusing on nature!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

1-No advertising or spam.

2-No harrassment of any kind.

3-No illegal or NSFW or gore content.

founded 1 year ago
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SchmidtGenetics 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just make it your kids problem, sure that’s worked so far.

[–] Skasi 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You keep acting like trees are harming humans. Personally I haven't been harmed by a tree before and I'm happy everytime I see one. They're much nicer to look at, less noisy, require less roads and provide more shade than cars. Also they don't burn fossils.

Following your logic, since trees are carbon neutral and presumably only create problems for future generations, we'd have to go and remove all trees that exist on Earth. Sounds like something the woodcutting lobby would say.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think they’re saying that since there’s are neutral, focusing on them to fix or climate is a distraction from what we really need to do.

Namely stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

We’re still more forest, but it’s going to be hard to get that off the climate is too far gone to safely sustain one, like how so much of Canada is burning at the moment (and does now pretty much every summer).

[–] SchmidtGenetics 1 points 3 months ago

Not to mention unless we curb populations, that land will be needed for housing or food eventually. You can only go up so efficiently, and can’t rely on natural lighting with vertical farming.